![]() Finally, the judge said it was reasonable for the mother to accept a high paying position out of state, given the current economic climate.Īt a final hearing on the matter, both parents provided testimony in favor of their position regarding relocation of the couple’s children. ![]() In addition, the judge stated it was undisputed that the wife was the twins’ primary caretaker. As part of his order, the judge created a temporary parenting plan that would provide both parents with a comparable amount of parenting time. According to the judge, the woman informed her former husband that she was considering relocating to Ohio for work at the beginning of the couple’s divorce trial. Following an October hearing, the trial judge found that the mother did not engage in bad faith and stated her former husband was not surprised by her request. Next, the father filed his own OTSC seeking to vacate the court’s temporary order. The court granted the wife’s request and allowed her to temporarily move the twins to Ohio in order to accept her employment offer. In her OTSC, the woman asked the court to allow her to move the couple’s children to Ohio if their father refused to provide his consent. The mother then filed an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) with the court. In her letter, the woman stated she was only provided with seven days to consider the offer. In September 2012, the family court entered a final judgment of divorce which provided that the mother was designated as the Parent of Primary Residence (the “PPR”) and the father as the Parent of Alternate Residence (the “PAR”).Ī few days before the divorce judgment was entered, the mother notified her former husband that she received a job offer in Ohio. Following a divorce trial, the couple reached a custody settlement that was incorporated in their Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (“DJOD”). She was also promised a bonus and severance package worth approximately $200,000. During this time, the wife earned about $300,000 per year.Ībout one year after the father initiated divorce proceedings, his former wife lost her job effective December 31, 2012. Not long after their wedding, however, the husband lost his job and remained unemployed until he filed for divorce in 2011. At the time of their marriage, both spouses were employed by an investment banking firm. In a recent Appellate Division ruling, a couple married in 2005 and had twins in 2009. ![]() A primary caretaker’s job offer warranted the removal of a divorced New Jersey couple’s minor children to another state.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |