J.B. v. W.B.
215 N.J. 305
| N.J. | 2013Background
- J.B. and W.B. divorced in 2002; they executed a comprehensive PSA deferring post-secondary education funding and other issues.
- PSA set child support at $4,166.66 per child monthly ($50,000 per year per child) and provided for A.B.'s lifelong support due to autism.
- The PSA anticipated future education funding and allowed either party to seek relief from the court if disagreements arose, but did not specify a trust arrangement.
- In 2009, after A.B. turned 21 and began out-of-state education, J.B. moved to redirect support into a Special Needs Trust (SNT) and to address related reliefs.
- The trial court denied the motion, the Appellate Division affirmed, and this Court granted certification to consider SNTs for an adult unemancipated disabled child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a parent modify a PSA by creating an SNT for an adult disabled child? | J.B. seeks to redirect child support into an SNT to preserve benefits for AB. | PSA already addresses AB’s needs; modification requires demonstrated changed circumstances or best interests considerations with adequate plan. | Modification denied; plan inadequate; use of a guardian ad litem discussion reserved for future cases. |
| What standards apply when deferred issues are evaluated for an adult disabled child? | Best interests and flexibility should permit an informed consideration of the trust plan. | Changing the PSA requires clear evidence and a detailed plan; speculative proposals are insufficient. | Best interests guide consideration, but sufficient detail and plan are required to approve an SNT. |
| Was a guardian ad litem or independent review appropriate here to evaluate AB's best interests? | A GAL would protect AB’s interests since he is the affected party. | AB is not a party to the action and Rule 4:86/5:8B limits GAL appointment; not warranted here. | Court did not err in not appointing a GAL; the plan lacked detail to justify appointment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980) (changed circumstances standard for modification of PSAs)
- Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (N.J. 1995) (child support belongs to the child; direct payments affect benefits)
- Martinetti v. Hickman, 261 N.J. Super. 508 (App.Div. 1993) (support obligations and public policy in modifications)
- Conforti v. Guliadis, 128 N.J. 318 (N.J. 1992) (equitable authority to modify negotiated settlements in family law)
- Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (N.J. 1999) (enforcement and modification of PSAs within fairness and equity)