J.B. v. W.B. (069972), 73 A.3d 405

J.B. and W.B. are divorced parents of A.B., autistic; PSA deferred post-secondary education issues.
PSA provided $50,000 yearly child support for each child and anticipated A.B.’s lifelong support needs; contemplated a special needs trust but did not finalize one.
In 2009, A.B. began attending a Connecticut post-secondary program for individuals with special needs; J.B. moved to direct his child support into a special needs trust for A.B.’s education and living expenses.
Trial court denied modification to redirect support into a trust, citing lack of changed circumstances and insufficient plan detail; Appellate Division affirmed.
Supreme Court granted certification to consider whether a special needs trust could substitute for part of the support obligation and under what conditions guardian ad litem oversight is appropriate.
Court addresses the use and limits of special needs trusts, the standard for modifying PSAs, and when a guardian ad litem may be warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a parent modify a negotiated PSA by creating a special needs trust funded with child support?	J.B. seeks to redirect support into a SNT for A.B.’s benefits.	PSA terms should control; no sufficient changed circumstances or plan.	No, inadequate plan and lack of demonstrated benefit warrant denial.
What standard governs modification of a PSA when deferred issues involve a disabled child?	Changed circumstances or best interests permit modification.	modification requires concrete plan and evidence of benefit.	Changed circumstances or best interests standard governs; need detailed plan.
Must a detailed plan exist for a special needs trust to be approved?	A plan exists in concept; should be evaluated on best interests.	Plan is speculative and lacks trustee, disbursement terms, or eligibility details.	Yes; court requires a specific, complete plan with trustee and funding details.
Should a guardian ad litem be appointed when a disabled child is the subject of a SNT proposal?	A.B. should have independent advocacy; guardian appointment warranted.	No automatic guardian; case does not involve custody; plan lacked detail.	Trial court did not abuse discretion in not appointing a guardian; may appoint if plan becomes informed.

Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980) (changed circumstances standard for modification of support)
Conforti v. Guliadis, 128 N.J. 318 (N.J. 1992) (equitable authority to modify PSAs for fairness)
Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (N.J. 1999) (contractual nature of PSAs; enforceability with fairness)
Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (N.J. 1995) (child's support belongs to the child; government benefits impact)
In re Keri, 181 N.J. 50 (N.J. 2004) (guidance on trusts maximizing beneficiary benefit under benefits rules)
In re Jennings v. Comm’r, N.Y.S. Dep’t of Social Servs., (not NJ official reporter) (App. Div. 2010) (trust planning for disability benefits (non-NJ source cited))
Mazart & Spielberg, Trusts for Disabled Persons, (not NJ official reporter) ((law review)) (discussion of special needs trusts and benefits)