changed circumstances inquiry in New Jersey

2022Super. 58, 62 (App. Div. 2014)). "[A] motion for a change in custody . . . will be governed initially by a changed circumstances inquiry and ultimately by a simple best interests analysis." R.K., 437 N.J. at 62 (second alteration in original) (quoting Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 116 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017)).

2020Super. 58, 62 (App. Div. 2014)). "[A] motion for a change in custody . . . will be governed initially by a changed circumstances inquiry and ultimately by a simple best interests analysis," R.K., 437 N.J. at 62 (second alteration in original) (quoting Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 116 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017)), using "the same standard that applie[d] at the time of [an] original judgment of divorce." Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting Gonzalez-Posse v. Ricciardulli, 410 N.J.

2025In Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 150-59 (1980), the Supreme Court explained that alimony modification is governed by the changed circumstances doctrine.

2020Super. ___ (App. Div. Sep. 12, 2019), we recently held that "the changed circumstances standard of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980), continues to apply to a motion to suspend or terminate alimony based on cohabitation following the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n)." Landau, slip op. at 1-2.

2020Ibid.

2019In A-1285-17T2 5 doing so, the judge properly found defendant "failed to provide case information statements, both current and historical, as required by Rule 5:5-4."1 Moreover, the judge astutely recognized defendant's challenges to the FJOD were governed by different standards: Applications for relief from equitable distribution provisions contained in a judgment of divorce are subject to Rule 4:50-1 and not as in the case of alimony, support, custody, and other matters of continuing jurisdiction subject to a changed circumstances standard, Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J.

2026See J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 327 (2013) (noting "the changed circumstances standard does not operate A-0795-24 7 as a threshold barrier to address the motion [to modify] before the court" where the parties' settlement agreement "fashion[s] a solution to the acknowledged issues but defer[s] the resolution of these issues until a later date").

2025See J.B., 215 N.J. at 326-27 .

2022A proper changed circumstances analysis "requires a court to study the parties' financial condition at the time of the divorce, as well as at the time of the application." Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J.

2018A proper changed circumstances analysis "requires a court to study the parties' financial condition at the time of the divorce, as well as, at the time of the application." Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J.

2021Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J.

2020Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J.

2014This presumption plays an important role in the initial DV proceedings, which must be conducted expeditiously, and in which 1 Because the changed-circumstances standard will not be applied on remand, we need not address Father's argument that the trial court's formulation, "a substantial change in circumstances," Voit v. Voit, 317 N.J.

2014Because the changed-circumstances standard will not be applied on remand, we need not address Father’s argument that the trial court's formulation, "a substantial change in circumstances," Voit v. Voit, 317 NJ.Super. 103, 121, 721 A.2d 317 (Ch.Div.1998), differed from the formulation, "a change in circumstances warranting modification,” set forth in Beck, supra, 86 NJ. at 496 n. 8, 432 A.2d 63 , and other cases.

2019The standard under Rule 4:50-1(f) "is quite different from the changed circumstances standard of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 145-49 (1980) which only applies to the modification of support." Ibid. (citing Schwartzman v. Schwartzman, 248 N.J.

1992Schwartzman, 248 N.J.

2002Obviously then, the preliminary question in any case in which a parent seeks to relocate with a child is whether it is a removal case or whether by virtue of the arrangement between the parties, it is actually a motion for a change of custody. [ Id. at 116 , 770 A. 2d 214 .] See Voit v. Voit, 317 N.J.Super. 103, 119 , 721 A. 2d 317 (Ch.Div.1998) (holding that the removal criteria is inapplicable where both legal and physical custody is shared because there in no inequality between the parents' contributions to the child's best interest); see also Chen v. Heller, 334 N.J.Super. 361, 380-82 , 75

2002Obviously then, the preliminary question in any case in which a parent seeks to relocate with a child is whether it is a removal case or whether by virtue of the arrangement between the parties, it is actually a motion for a change of custody. [ Id. at 116 , 770 A. 2d 214 .] See Voit v. Voit, 317 N.J.Super. 103, 119 , 721 A. 2d 317 (Ch.Div.1998) (holding that the removal criteria is inapplicable where both legal and physical custody is shared because there in no inequality between the parents' contributions to the child's best interest); see also Chen v. Heller, 334 N.J.Super. 361, 380-82 , 75

2026See Bisbing v. Bisbing, 445 N.J.

2020Super. at 105 . "[A] motion for a change in custody . . . will be governed initially by a changed circumstances inquiry and ultimately by a simple best interests analysis." Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 116 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017); see also R.K. v. F.K., 437 N.J.

2020Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 609 (1986)). "[A] noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings 'may always initiate a request for a change in custody,' which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis." I.S., 214 N.J. at 40 (quoting G.M., 198 N.J. at 402 n.3).

2019Assessments of changed circumstances concerning child support involve consideration of the parties' current situations compared "with the circumstances which formed the basis for the last order fixing support obligations." Beck v. Beck, 239 N.J.

2019We determine the party seeking modification still has the burden of showing the changed circumstance of cohabitation so as to warrant relief from an alimony obligation, see Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 353 (1956), and hold the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute did not alter the requirement that "[a] prima facie showing of changed circumstances must be made before a court will order discovery of an ex-spouse's financial status." Lepis, 83 N.J. at 157 .