SUNDEEP SINGH SEKHON VS. AMRITA AMY SEKHON (FM-01-0563-11, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2666-19

Background

Parties divorced in 2012; incorporated custody/parenting-time and support/property agreements. Plaintiff (father) initially paid $500/week child support; agreements allocated extra child expenses pro rata and required defendant (mother) to share travel costs for parenting time.
Defendant relocated with the children to Canada after the divorce; original Guidelines worksheet assumed plaintiff income ~$720,000 and imputed defendant income $20,000.
In 2018 defendant moved to increase child support (citing children’s increased needs and plaintiff’s higher income); plaintiff cross-moved to enforce parenting time, seek transportation cost contributions, compel a parent coordinator, and obtain sanctions/counsel fees.
The motion judge ordered recalculation of support, received updated financials, added back disallowed business deductions to plaintiff’s income (finding child-support income ≈ $1,336,872), found defendant’s current earnings ≈ $21,840, and declined to impute additional income to defendant.
The judge increased plaintiff’s support obligation to $1,000/week (retroactive to May 16, 2018), denied defendant’s travel-cost contribution request for lack of documentation, found parent-coordinator fees moot (but left contractual cost-sharing if engaged), and denied sanctions and counsel fees.
Both parties appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the Family Part’s factual findings and application of the Guidelines and statutory factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge erred by recalculating support without imputing more income to defendant	Judge should have imputed higher income to defendant (she hid employment)	Defendant had minimal work history during marriage and limited post-marital earnings; imputation inappropriate	Affirmed: judge properly relied on submitted income (defendant ≈ $21,840) and permissibly refused to impute additional income absent evidence of voluntary underemployment
Whether judge should have compelled defendant to pay 50% of parenting-time transportation costs or parent-coordinator fees	Plaintiff sought court order for 50% travel cost contribution and payment toward parent coordinator	Defendant disputed travel claims and said no proof of payment; parent coordinator not actively retained previously	Affirmed: travel costs denied for lack of documentation; parent-coordinator issue moot but contractual cost-sharing stands if engaged in future
Whether judge should have imposed sanctions and awarded counsel fees against defendant	Plaintiff sought sanctions and fees for alleged noncompliance and sabotage of parenting time	Defendant filed a legitimate modification motion and met her burden; plaintiff did not prevail on enforcement claims	Affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion in denying sanctions and fees after applying applicable rules and factors
Whether supplemental support ($125/week above Guidelines, total $1,000/week) was arbitrary/insufficient	Plaintiff contended recalculation and retroactivity were improper; defendant (cross-appellant) argued the $125/week supplemental award was arbitrary and inadequate	Judge applied Guidelines up to statutory maximum, then addressed excess income via N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 factors; found needs and lifestyle justified supplemental amount	Affirmed: judge’s supplemental award was supported by evidence and reasoned application of Guidelines and statutory factors; not a windfall

Key Cases Cited

Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (2005) (court may apply Guidelines to maximum and supplement award based on excess income and statutory factors)
Caplan v. Caplan, 364 N.J. Super. 68 (App. Div. 2003) (children entitled to share in parent’s financial achievement)
Isaacson v. Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2002) (needs of children and standard of living inform supplemental awards for high-income payors)
Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2008) (both parents share obligation; assess children’s reasonable needs in context of parties’ lifestyle)
Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 2015) (factors to consider when imputing income, including childcare deductions for parents caring for young children)
Gormley v. Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2019) (court has discretion to impute income when appropriate)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to family-court factfinding and expertise)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for disturbing trial-court factual findings on appeal)