Splitting the Baby Never Works: When Did New Jersey Adopt a 50/50 Physical Custody Presumption?
"Make no mistake: New Jersey law does not presently have a presumption of 50/50 physical custody," write Matheu D. Nunn, Linda Torosian, Alyssa DeFuria and Alyssa Engleberg Nunn.
August 27, 2024 at 10:00 AM
9 minute read
Over the past few years, we have heard from several attorneys that some Family Part judges are under the mistaken impression that N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 stands for the proposition that, as a starting point in any parenting time dispute, there is a presumption of "equal" (50/50) physical custody. That mistaken approach views the "best interests" factors as the means to diverge from "presumptive" equal physical custody. In addition, there are unpublished Appellate Division decisions that can be interpreted in support of that proposition of law. Although this interpretation may lead to quicker resolutions of custody disputes because litigants (and attorneys) determine that the resources are insufficient to establish the requisite proofs to depart from the presumption, make no mistake: New Jersey law does not presently have a presumption of 50/50 physical custody.
To fully understand the current state of our law and precedent, it is necessary to analyze some relevant history. In 1906, the Court of Errors and Appeals held that "[i]n the absence of misconduct by the mother, it is customary to award to her the custody of a child of tender years." Dixon v. Dixon, 71 N.J. Eq. 281 (E. & A. 1906). Although the "tender years" doctrine continued for many decades, in 1943, the Court of Errors and Appeals held that "it is well settled that in such cases the best interest of the children is the paramount consideration of the court, not the contentions of the parents." McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 133 N.J. Eq. 72, 74–75 (E & A 1943). At that time, the then-existing version of 9:2-4 provided:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
8 minute readAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Trending Stories
- 1Munger, Gibson Dunn Billed $63 Million to Snap in 2024
- 2January Petitions Press High Court on Guns, Birth Certificate Sex Classifications
- 3'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 4Judge Extends Tom Girardi's Time in Prison Medical Facility to Feb. 20
- 5Supreme Court Denies Trump's Request to Pause Pending Environmental Cases
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250