Matrimonial Mother Fuckers
If paternity is proved or admitted, the judge will sign an Order of Filiation, an official court paper saying that the person is the father of the child. Then the hearing will continue to decide support rights. A man charged in a contested paternity proceeding may hire a lawyer to represent him or can have a lawyer appointed if he cannot afford one. If the mother is using the services of the Support Collection Unit at the Department of Social Services, that Unit will represent the mother regardless of income.
Matrimonial Mother Fuckers
Thus, there is no question that Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction over custody andchild support as between unmarried parents. The only question is whether it should do so in thiscase. Here, the Mother has filed in Supreme Court, and the parties have appeared before me forthree court appearances and are scheduled for a fourth. If I were to decline jurisdiction, it wouldextend the amount of time that the parties and their child would have to wait for the issues ofcustody and child support to be resolved, and it would waste judicial resources, as the Motherwould have to re-file in Family Court, where the support and custody matters would then beassigned to a support magistrate and a Judge sitting in a custody and visitation part, respectively.This would be contrary to the "one family-one judge" philosophy repeatedly advocated byformer Chief Judge Kaye (see, e.g. The State of the Judiciary 2002 at 7, available atwww.courts.state.ny.us./ctapps/StofJud2002.pdf; see also Hartofilis & McAdoo,Separate but Not Equal: a Call for the Merger of the New York State Supreme and FamilyCourts, 40 Columbia Law School Journal of Law and Social Problems 657 ; Lippman,Court Reform: Vital to Judicial Accountability; NYLJ, December 6, 2006, at 2, col 1;Matrimonial Commission, Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York at 25 [Feb2006], available at www.courts.state. ny.us/ip/matrimonial-commission), and increasinglyrecognized by the courts (George A. vIvett A., 14 Misc 3d 622 [Sup Ct Bx Co 2006]; Moss v Davis, 11 Misc 3d1060a, 7 [City Ct, Rochester 2006], People v Allen, 9 Misc 3d 235, 3, n1 [Sup Ct Bronx Co 2005]).Therefore, the Father's motion to dismiss the Mother's second and third causes of action isdenied.
Allison McGoughran is a matrimonial paralegal and office manager with the Law Office of Timothy F. McGoughran, LLC. Allison has worked exclusively in the area of family law in New Jersey since 1978 handling all aspects of matrimonial litigation and working with clients in the successful resolution of their particular family matters. She is an ardent and dedicated supporter of her clients.
Allison avails herself of continuing legal education programs several times each year to keep up to date on current trends in matrimonial law, specifically at the Annual Family Law Symposium in January each year, presented by the NJSBA Family Law Section, the New Jersey State Bar Association Mid-Year Meeting in November of each year, and the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting and Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey each May, as well as other family law programs and events throughout the year including the New Jersey State Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee annual convention in March of each year.
Allison was born in Monmouth County and resides in Ocean Township with her husband and is the mother of three children. She is a former equestrian having competed in New Jersey with her horses in the 1970s in the State as well as representing New Jersey on the national level sponsored by Rutgers University. During that time she held leadership and officer positions in several equestrian organizations.
Ivy is 11 years old. She attended School 1, and at the age of 9 was sent to School 2. The parents disagree as to the reason why she was sent there. The mother says it was because they had resolved that she would be sent to a boarding school. The father says that it was because they wanted to ensure that a boarding school option was available. As to what was agreed between the parents at the time, our suspicion is that probably nothing was agreed although the mother thought that it had. The father conceded in his evidence that he had been a workaholic and focussed on his business, which in many ways he regretted. He accepted that the mother was the primary carer. He accepted that before his separation from the mother, he could and should have put more into his family relationships and he agreed it was unsurprising that the children's relationships with their mother was stronger than it was with him. He agreed that he had a volatile relationship with Ivy, but it was not a bad one. He wanted to help her develop proper values for her adulthood, but he agreed that he possibly needed to think harder about the way in which the messages ought to be delivered. In particular in relation to Ivy, he was frightened that she would disappear from his life if she was sent away to school. Although he agreed his bond with her was not as strong as it might be, he thought that it could improve given time and he was very anxious to give it that time.
Nathan, aged 9, is currently attending School 3. He was due to move from that school to School 2 in September last year, having attended an induction course at School 2 in March 2014. There was some dispute between the mother and the father as to whether the move would have taken place in September 2014 or September 2015, but, notwithstanding a letter from the school obtained by the father recently, we think that the intention was that Nathan should have moved in September 2015. That would be consistent with the move which his sister had made, and consistent with the difficulties of otherwise having had to give immediate notice in March/April 2014 that his education at School 3 would come to an end in the July. At all events, Nathan did not move to School 2 in September 2015, because there was the ongoing disagreement between the parents as to future education arrangements. He is doing well at School 3. He is clearly an intelligent boy.
Alex, aged 7, attends School 2. He went there at the age of 4, and he is also doing well. The parents agree that they entered him for School 2 because he is a sensitive child and it was thought by the parents, rightly or wrongly, that the smaller class size would enable School 2 to offer him a more nurturing schooling than would be available elsewhere. Although there had been a suggestion at one point that he would move to School 3 at the age of 7, he did not do so in the light of the mother's objections, which were based on her desire to see him remain at the same school as his elder sister and brother. Given that the natural time for him to move to School 3, if he were to do so, would be either aged 7 or aged 11, the parties have agreed that he should remain at School 2 until the age of 11 when he would move to School 3. The mother and the father both agree that he seems to be, by temperament, a child who would be better suited to be educated in Jersey. His cognitive ability test (CAT) score is well above the national average and there ought not to be any difficulty in his passing the relevant examination to enter School 4 at the age of 11.
Leon is aged 3. He currently attends the School 11, and the parties are agreed that it would be desirable for him to attend School 2's Pre-Preparatory School in September. Attending the same school as Alex would be desirable for both him and Alex. It is otherwise too early to tell what would be in his best interests generally as far as education is concerned. The mother considers that he should remain at School 2 until he is 11 when the matter should be reassessed. The father contends that he should leave School 2 for School 3 when aged 7, because he would then join his brother.
It is against this background that the Court is faced with a difficult decision to make in relation to the education of the four children of these parents. The father is very anxious that the children should attend as day pupils in Jersey until they are 16 when he thinks they are old enough to make an informed choice as to whether they should go away to boarding school for the last two years of their secondary education. The mother considers that the parties had always...
2.1 The author states that he was married to J. M. B., a Canadian nurse, on 20 January1976, because of her advanced pregnancy; their son A. was born less than three monthslater. As a result of marital disagreements and the husband's allegations of "mentalcruelty", the spouses were separated by a separation agreement of December 1977, anddivorced in June 1982. The author's communication concerns alleged violations of hisrights under the Covenant during the divorce proceedings, in particular in connection withthe lower court's decision to grant custody of the child to the mother under the CanadianDivorce Act, to award her alimony and child support in the amount of $800 per month and todivide matrimonial property on the basis of a retroactive application of the newMatrimonial Property Act of the Province of Alberta. Such dispositions allegedlyconstituted a gross abuse of judicial discretion by the judge concerned of the TrialDivision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.
(b) Article 3, because "the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta failed to take appropriate steps to prevent discrimination based on sex in the implementation of laws governing child custody and division of matrimonial property";
2.3 The author further argues that the granting of unrestricted and unchallengeablediscretionary powers to judges in matters of division of matrimonial property and awardingof child custody goes literally against the essence of justice. "If the purpose ofall laws is to protect one human from the arbitrary will of another, then the idea ofawarding a judge unrestricted and unchallengeable discretionary powers amounts tosuspension of the rule of law in fayour of the rule of the individual. The unrestricteddiscretionary power of judges is literally against the intent and the purposes of theentire International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is indeedunconstitutional according to the Canadian Charter of Rights." In his own case heclaims that the trial judge "has been sexist and racist", possibly because theauthor is of Egyptian origin and his ex-wife was born and raised in the trial judge's hometown. 350c69d7ab