2015 NJSBA Annual Meeting
Family Law Track
Modern Family – Resolving Complex Issues within LGBT Families Co-Sponsored by the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Rights Section and the Family Law Section
Moderator/Speaker: Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Esq. Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., Bridgewater
Speakers: Honorable Katherine R. Dupuis, P.J.S.C., Union County Hon. Coleen M. Flynn, J.S.C., Middlesex Honorable Peter J. Melchionne, J.S.C., Bergen County Jodi Argentino, Esq. Argentino & Jacobs, LLC, Rockaway Robyn B. Gigl, Esq. Stein, McGuire, Pantages & Gigl, LLP Debra E. Guston, Esq., CAE Guston & Guston, LLP, Glen Rock Amy Zylman Shimalla, Esq. Shimalla, Wechsler, Lepp & D’Onofrio, LLP, Warren
© 2015 New Jersey State Bar Association. All rights reserved. Any copying of material herein, in whole or in part, and by any means without written permission is prohibited. Requests for such permission should be sent to the New Jersey State Bar Association, New Jersey Law Center, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520.
The material contained in these pages is for educational purposes only and not intended as a substitute for the professional services an attorney would normally provide to a client, including up to the minute legal research.
Useful Definitions and Guidelines in Dealing with LGBT Issues
Gender Identity: A person’s innate, deeply-felt identification as a man, a woman, or some other status, which may or may not correspond with to their external body or sex assigned at birth (i.e. listed on their birth certificate) Gender Expression: The external manifestation of a person’s gender identity, which may or may not conform to the socially-defined behaviors and external characteristics that are commonly referred to as either masculine or feminine. These behaviors and characteristics are expressed through movement, dress, grooming, hairstyles, jewelry, mannerisms, physical characteristics, social interactions, and speech patterns (voice). Gender Non-Conforming: A term for individuals whose gender expression is different from societal expectations and/or stereotypes related to gender. Gender Queer: A term which generally refers to a person who does not accept a gender binary world and refuses to conform their behavior to any gender stereotypical behavior. Cross-Dresser: A term for people who dress in clothing not typically worn by their assigned birth sex, but who generally do not desire to live full-time as the other gender. Intersex: Biologically, a person who was born with both female and male or indescript sexual genitalia or chromosomal differences that create secondary sexual characteristics Transgender: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from their assigned sex at birth (i.e., the sex listed on their birth certificates). Not all transgender people want to live as the sex opposite of the one they were assigned at birth. Individuals who cross dress, live androgynously or do not live their life in a gender binary manner (gender queer) are all within the umbrella term “transgender.” The preferred use of the word transgender is as an adjective and not a noun or a verb. (Tony is a transgender man. NOT Tony is a transgender. OR Tony is transgendered.) Transgender Man: A term for a transgender individual who, assigned female at birth, currently identifies as a man. This is sometimes shortened to transman. Transgender Woman: A term for a transgender individual who, assigned male at birth, currently identifies as a woman. This is sometimes shortened to transwoman. Transsexual: People whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth (i.e., the sex listed on their birth certificates). People who, often on a full-time basis, live their lives as a member of the sex opposite of their birth-designated sex. They may or may not take hormones or have surgery. This term is hotly debated within the transgender community and should be utilized only if the individual is comfortable with the term. Gender Affirmation or Transition: When an individual begins to live as the sex opposite of the one assigned at birth that process is referred to as transitioning or going through the gender affirmation process. Gender Dysphoria: a strong and persistent cross-gender identification and persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex which causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Some, but not all, transgender individuals have gender dysphoria. This has been, and in some literature, still is referred to as “gender identity disorder,” however, many in the community consider the use of disorder to be offensive and gender dysphoria is now the preferred technical term. Gender Reassignment Surgery (Also referred to as Gender Confirming Surgery or Gender Affirming Surgery): Terms that refers to various surgical procedures that change one’s body to align gender identity and presentation. Contrary to popular belief, there is not one surgery; in fact there are many different surgeries. Hormone Therapy: The administration of hormones to facilitate the development of secondary sex characteristics as part of a medical transition process. Those medically transitioning from female to male may take testosterone while those transitioning from male to female may take estrogen and androgen blockers. Sexual Orientation: A term describing a person’s attraction to members of the same gender and/or different gender. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different concepts. Gay: A terms used to describe a male who is sexually and emotionally attracted to other males. Lesbian: A term used to describe a female who is sexually and emotionally attracted to other females. Bisexual: A term used to describe a male or female who is sexually and emotionally attracted to both sexes. Questioning: A term used to describe a person who is unsure and is questioning their sexual orientation. Heterosexual/Straight: A terms used to describe a person who is sexually and emotionally attracted to persons of the opposite sex.
LGBT Cultural Competency Etiquette
Words not to use with a transgender individual because they are out dated or considered offensive – “trannie,” “tranny,” “she-male,” “he-she,” ‘it,” “transvestite,” “sex change,” “sex change operation.” Whenever possible, use a transgender person's chosen name even if it is not their legal name. Often transgender people cannot afford a legal name change or are not yet old enough to change their name legally. They should be afforded the same respect for their chosen name as anyone else who lives by a name other than their birth name (e.g., celebrities) If it is not possible to ask a transgender person which pronoun he or she prefers, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if a person wears a dress and uses the name Susan, feminine pronouns are appropriate.
Words not to use with a gay or lesbian individual: Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.) Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people" Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay.” Offensive: "sexual preference" Preferred: "sexual orientation" or "orientation" The term "sexual preference" is typically used to suggest that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a choice and therefore can and should be "cured." Sexual orientation is the accurate description of an individual's enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex and is inclusive of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, as well as straight men and women. Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc. Preferred: "relationship," "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc. Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships. As a rule, try to avoid labeling an activity, emotion or relationship gay, lesbian, or bisexual unless you would call the same activity, emotion or relationship "straight" if engaged in by someone of another orientation. In most cases, your listeners will be able to discern people's sexes and/or orientations through the names of the parties involved, your depictions of their relationships, and your use of pronouns. Offensive: "gay lifestyle" or "homosexual lifestyle” Preferred: "gay lives," "gay and lesbian lives" There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are diverse in the ways they lead their lives. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals suggesting that their orientation is a choice and therefore can and should be "cured." Offensive: "admitted homosexual" or "avowed homosexual" Preferred: "openly lesbian," "openly gay," "openly bisexual," or simply "out" terms used to describe those who self-identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in their personal, public, and/or professional lives. The words "admitted" or "avowed" suggest that being gay is somehow shameful or inherently secretive. You may also simply describe the person as being out, for example: "Ricky Martin is an out pop star from Puerto Rico." Offense terms: "fag," "faggot," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," and similar epithets These derogatory terms should be treated in the same manner as vulgar epithets used to target other groups. They should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."
Marriage, Civil Unions, & Domestic Partnerships – The Modern Family by Amy Zylman Shimalla, Esq., and Ashley B. Monteiro, Esq.
This article addresses the distinctions among marriage, civil unions and domestic
partnerships, including the prerequisites to formation, and the legal rights encompassed within
each relationship. The materials also outline the requirements for dissolution.
I. Marriage: Formation & Implications
Requirements for Entering into a Marriage:
The requirements for entering into the bonds of matrimony are governed by N.J.S.A. §
37:1. Both parties must have attained the age of eighteen. In the event that a minor under the
age of eighteen seeks to obtain a marriage license in the State of New Jersey, the parents or
guardian of the minor must provide consent, under oath, in the presence of two reputable witnesses.1 If under the age of sixteen, a judge of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family
Part must approve, in writing, the consent of the parent or guardian.
In accordance with N.J.S.A. §37:1-9, no marriage license shall be issued to an
incapacitated person. The mutual consent of competent parties to assume a marital status is
essential to the formation of a marriage.2 Without the contractual element of mutual consent at
inception, the marriage is totally void.3 An incapacitated person is not of sound mind and, therefore, incapable of providing consent. Thus, intoxication, coercion, duress, fraud, and
mental incapacitation due to drug use or mental illness are all grounds to invalidate a marriage.
In addition, no marriage license shall be issued to a person who has a valid marriage
license with another individual. N.J.S.A. § 37:1-1 prohibits any person from entering into a marriage with a relative.
1
Implications:
Marriage confers over a thousand federal rights and benefits and hundreds of additional rights and benefits under state law4. On a federal level, filing a joint tax return creates a “family partnership” under tax laws, which allows the division of business income among family members. Numerous estate planning benefits are available to married couples, for example, inheritance interest in a spouse’s estate, estate tax and gift tax exemption for all property left to a spouse, the ability to create certain life estate trusts that are exclusively available to married persons, and priority status if a conservator is required for a spouse. Married couples share in social security, Medicare, disability benefits, public assistance, veterans’ benefits, and military benefits. Marital status provides certain employment benefits, including, health and life insurance coverage, utilizing family leave to care for a spouse during illness, bereavement leave, and receiving workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
In Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), the Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously held that the New Jersey Constitution guarantees same-sex couples in committed relationships the same rights and benefits as married couples of opposite sex. The Supreme Court stopped short of mandating same-sex marriage and deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same- sex couples to marry or to create a separate status such as civil unions.5
In response, the Legislature passed New Jersey’s Civil Union Act, and established “civil unions.” Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s holding in Lewis, New Jersey’s Civil Union Act fails to confer equal rights to same-sex couples. By virtue of its separate status, a civil union is inherently unequal. The principle that separate is not equal was well established in 1954 by the monumental United States Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education. Moreover, a report by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission stated that civil union status was not
2
recognized or honored by a number of employers and hospitals. As a result, Garden State
Equality, an advocacy group, and six same-sex couples and their children filed a lawsuit in 2011
alleging that civil-union status fails to provide equal treatment to same-sex couples. Garden State
Equality v. Dow, 434 N.J. Super. 163 (2013).6
During the pendency of the litigation, the United States Supreme Court invalidated
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in United States v. Windsor.7 That ruling
changed the contour of the pending New Jersey lawsuit. Under Windsor, married same-sex
couples in states that recognize their marriages are eligible for the complete, vast array of federal
rights, benefits, and obligations. In New Jersey, however, marriage was not available to same-
sex couples, thereby depriving them of federal rights and subjecting them to unequal treatment
under the law. As such, the plaintiffs in Garden State Equality moved for summary judgment.
On September 27, 2013, the Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the
Superior Court of New Jersey in Mercer County, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment. Judge Jacobson opined that civil-union partners were being denied equal access to
federal benefits because of the label placed on their relationship. Such a result would completely
undermine the New Jersey Constitution and the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Lewis.
The trial court therefore held that the State must extend the right to civil marriage to same-sex
couples.
The New Jersey Attorney General, acting on behalf of the named defendants, moved for a
stay of the trial court’s order. Judge Jacobson denied the motion to stay. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the State’s motion for direct certification and took
jurisdiction over the motion to stay. The Supreme Court of New Jersey acknowledged that in the
wake of Windsor, a number of federal agencies extended marital benefits to same-sex couples
3
who are lawfully married, but not to partners in civil unions. As a result, civil-union partners in
New Jersey do not receive the same benefits as married same-sex couples when it comes to
family and medical leave, Medicare, tax and immigration matters, estate tax benefits, military
and veterans’ affairs, and other areas. As such, contrary to the holding in Lewis, the State
Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection was not met under the then existing paradigm.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey in Garden State Equality, applied settled legal
standards and ultimately determined that the State had not shown a reasonable probability that it
would succeed on the merits. The Court denied the State’s motion for a stay, thereby permitting
same-sex couples, to enter into a civil marriage beginning October 21, 2013. After the Supreme
Court’s denial of the motion to stay, the State withdrew the appeal. Thus, same-sex couples have
been permitted to enter into civil marriages since October 21, 2013.
II. Civil Unions: Formation and Implications
Background
In response to the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s ruling in Lewis v. Harris, the
Legislature, on December 14, 2006, passed the bill for the Civil Union Act. It was signed into law by Governor Corzine on December 21, 2006 and took effect on February 19, 2007.
New Jersey’s Civil Union Act expands the rights promulgated under the Domestic
Partnership Act. The Civil Union Act attempted to establish the same legal rights and financial benefits available to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples. Notwithstanding the
Supreme Court’s ruling in Garden State Equality v. Dow, which permitted same-sex couples the right to enter into a civil marriage, civil unions are still available to same-sex couples.
New Jersey is one of four states that recognizes civil unions. Civil unions are also
available in Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois. New Jersey honors civil unions from other states. It
4
is unclear, however, whether other states will recognize a civil union from New Jersey. Other
states, like Connecticut, had their own civil union laws and have since replaced those laws with
the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Many of those states automatically converted sanctioned civil unions to marriages, while some have required that couples affirmatively marry to attain marriage recognition.
Requirements
In order for a same sex couple to enter into a civil union, the couple must not be a party to another civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage in New Jersey or one that is recognized by the State of New Jersey. The couple must be of the same-sex and be at least eighteen years of age. Applicants under the age of eighteen may enter into a civil union with parental consent.
Applicants under the age of sixteen must have parental consent and have the consent approved in writing by any judge of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part.
Same sex couples who meet the requirements for entering into a civil union and are
registered as domestic partners, may enter into a civil union without terminating their domestic
partnership. If the domestic partnership was registered in New Jersey, it automatically
terminates when the civil union is registered. If the domestic partnership was registered in
another state, however, that state’s laws determine the impact on the domestic partnership.
While civil unions remain available to same-sex couples at the present, there are
legislative efforts underway to end the creation of new civil unions, while continuing to
recognize pre-existing civil unions.
Implications
The following rights are afforded to same-sex partners in a civil union:
5
• Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession,
survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership or transfer, inter
vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including but not limited to
eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety;
• causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action
for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, or other torts or actions
under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status;
• probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer;
• adoption law and procedures;
• laws relating to insurance, health and pension benefits;
• laws relating to insurance, health and pension benefits;
• domestic violence protections pursuant to the “Prevention of Domestic Violence
Act of 1991” and domestic violence programs;
• prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
• victim's compensation benefits, including but not limited to compensation to
spouse, children and relatives of homicide victims;
• workers' compensation benefits pursuant to chapter 15 of Title 34 of the Revised
Statutes, including but not limited to survivors' benefits and payment of back
wages
• laws relating to emergency and nonemergency medical care and treatment,
hospital visitation and notification, and any rights guaranteed to a hospital patient
or a nursing home resident;
• advance directives for health care and designation as a health care representative;
6
• family leave benefits;
• public assistance benefits under State law, including, but not limited to: Work
First New Jersey benefits, medical assistance, Supplemental Security Income,
pharmaceutical assistance, hearing aid assistance, and utility benefits;
• laws relating to taxes imposed by the State or a municipality including but not
limited to homestead rebate tax allowances, tax deductions based on marital status
or exemptions from realty transfer tax based on marital status;
• laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital
communication privilege;
• the home ownership rights of a surviving spouse;
• laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital
communication privilege;
• the right of a spouse to a surname change without petitioning the court;
• laws relating to the making of, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts;
• state pay for military service;
• application for absentee ballots;
• legal requirements for assignment of wages;
• laws related to tuition assistance for higher education for surviving spouses or
children.
• All rights, privileges and obligations of marriage are required under Lewis vs.
Harris should be recognized and enforced by the State, even if not enumerated in
the Civil Union Act.
7
III. Domestic Partnerships: Formation and Implications
Background
Prior to the enactment of New Jersey’s Civil Union Act, same-sex couples were
permitted to enter into domestic partnerships. Domestic partnerships are governed by N.J.S.A.
26:8A-1 and offer a very limited set of rights to same-sex couples. Beginning July 20, 2004, the
Legislature extended domestic partnerships to heterosexual couples over the age of 62. As of
February 19, 2007, the date civil unions went into effect, domestic partnerships are only
available to couples over the age of sixty-two. This change did not alter the relationship status of those couples that entered into a domestic partnership prior to February 19, 2007.
Requirements
Couples wishing to enter into a domestic partnership must both be 62 years of age or older.8 The couple must share a common residence in New Jersey or any other jurisdiction,
provided that at least one of the applicants is a member of a New Jersey State administered
retirement system.9 Both persons must be jointly responsible for each other’s common welfare as
evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property.10 Both must agree to be jointly responsible for each other’s basic living expenses during the domestic partnership.11 Neither person may be a party to a marriage or civil union recognized by New
Jersey law or a member of a domestic partnership with another individual. 12
The couple must not be related to each other by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity.13 The partners must choose to share each other’s lives in a
committed relationship of mutual caring and must not have legally terminated another domestic
partnership within the last 180 days. An exception to the 180 day requirement is where the
8
previous domestic partnership terminated due to the death of one partner. New Jersey recognizes
domestic partnerships from other states, however, it is unclear whether other jurisdictions will
recognize a domestic partnership from New Jersey.
Implications
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 26:8A-2, the rights available to individuals in domestic
partnerships include, statutory protections against various forms of discrimination, visitation and
decision-making rights in a health care setting, certain tax-related benefits, and in some casess,
health and pension benefits that are provided in the same manner as for spouses.
IV. Dissolution of Marriages, Civil Unions, & Domestic Partnerships
Marriage – Requirements for Divorce
When filing for a divorce on grounds other than adultery, either party must be a resident of the state for one year prior to commencement of the action. A plaintiff may file a complaint for divorce in the Superior Court of the county in which the plaintiff resides at the time the cause of action arises. If the plaintiff does not reside in New Jersey, the complaint may be filed in the county in which the defendant resides. 14
N.J.S.A. § 2A:34-2 encompasses the various grounds for divorce, they are as follows:
• Adultery
• Willful and continued desertion for the term of 12 or more months, which may be
established by satisfactory proof that the parties have ceased to cohabit as man
and wife
• Extreme cruelty, which is defined as including any physical or mental cruelty
which endangers the safety or health of the plaintiff or makes it improper or
unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue to cohabit with the defendant;
9
provided that no complaint for divorce shall be filed until after 3 months from the
date of the last act of cruelty complained of in the complaint, but this provision
shall not be held to apply to any counterclaim;
• Separation, provided that the husband and wife have lived separate and apart in
different habitations for a period of at least 18 or more consecutive months and
there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation; provided, further that after the
18-month period there shall be a presumption that there is no reasonable prospect
of reconciliation;
• Voluntarily induced addiction or habituation to any narcotic drug as defined in the
New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, or habitual drunkenness for a
period of 12 or more consecutive months subsequent to marriage and next
preceding the filing of the complaint;
• Institutionalization for mental illness for a period of 24 or more consecutive
months subsequent to marriage and next preceding the filing of the complaint;
• Institutionalization for mental illness for a period of 24 or more consecutive
months subsequent to marriage and next preceding the filing of the complaint;
• Imprisonment of the defendant for 18 or more consecutive months after marriage,
provided that where the action is not commenced until after the defendant's
release, the parties have not resumed cohabitation following such imprisonment;
• Deviant sexual conduct voluntarily performed by the defendant without the
consent of the plaintiff; and
10
• Irreconcilable differences which have caused the breakdown of the marriage for a
period of six months and which make it appear that the marriage should be
dissolved and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
In all actions where a Judgment of Divorce, Dissolution of civil union, divorce from bed and board, or legal separation from a partner in a civil union is entered, the court may make awards for Alimony, Child Support, and Equitable Distribution. The court is guided by criteria established by statute in determining an appropriate award for equitable distribution, and/or child support.
Dissolution of Civil Unions
As per N.J.S.A. § 2A:34-2.1, the dissolution of civil unions shall follow the same procedures and be subject to the same substantive rights and obligations that are involved in the dissolution of marriage. In order to initiate the process, a Complaint for Dissolution of the Civil
Union must be filed with the Court. The laws of domestic relations, including annulment, premarital agreements, separation, divorce, child custody and support, also apply to Civil
Unions. The grounds for dissolving a civil union are as follows:
• voluntary sexual intercourse between a person who is in a civil union and an
individual other than the person’s partner in a civil union couple;
• willful and continued desertion for a period of 12 or more consecutive months,
which may be established by satisfactory proof that the parties have ceased to
cohabit as partners in a civil union couple;
• extreme cruelty, which is defined as including any physical or mental cruelty that
endangers the safety or health of the plaintiff or makes it improper or
unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue to cohabit with the defendant;
11
except that no complaint for termination shall be filed until after three months
from the date of the last act of cruelty complained of in the complaint, but this
provision shall not be held to apply to any counterclaim;
• separation, provided that the partners in a civil union have lived separate and apart
in different habitations for a period of at least 18 or more consecutive months and
there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation; and provided further that, after
the 18-month period, there shall be a presumption that there is no reasonable
prospect of reconciliation;
• voluntarily induced addiction or habituation to any narcotic drug, or habitual
drunkenness for a period of 12 or more consecutive months subsequent to
establishment of civil union and next preceding the filing of the complaint;
• institutionalization for mental illness for a period of 24 or more consecutive
months subsequent to establishment of the civil union and next preceding the
filing of the complaint; and
• imprisonment of the defendant for 18 or more consecutive months subsequent to
establishment of the civil union, provided that where the action is not commenced
until after the defendant’s release, the parties have not resumed cohabitation
following imprisonment.
It is noteworthy that the grounds for divorce include “irreconcilable differences” but the grounds for dissolution of civil unions do not include this no-fault ground. In January, 2007, less
than one month before the Civil Union Act was effectuated, the Legislature amended the divorce
statute to include irreconcilable differences as a no-fault basis to grant a divorce and dissolve a marriage. The Civil Union Act was not amended accordingly.
12
Notwithstanding this limitation, Judge Jones of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean
County, issued a decision in March, 2014 permitting a same-sex couple to dissolve their civil
union on grounds of irreconcilable differences.15 Judge Jones pointed out that per the Supreme
Court in Lewis v. Harris, the intent behind the enactment of the New Jersey Civil Union Act,
N.J.S.A. §37:1-28 to 36, was to prohibit unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed
same-sex partners. Such unequal treatment could not be tolerated under this State’s Constitution.
Judge Jones reasoned in Groh v. Groh, that when the Civil Union Act was enacted, the
Legislature intended to create a statute that mirrored the divorce statute. N.J.S.A. § 37:1-33
directs that any law which references marriage, “shall include a civil union.” Additionally, in
signing the “irreconcilable differences” amendment into law, the Governor issued a public
signing statement articulating, “it is my clear understanding that this bill will be applicable to
same-gender couples who have entered into a civil union as well as to mixed-gender couples joined in matrimony.” Moreover, shortly after the Governor’s written statement, the
Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) forwarded correspondence to the each Assignment
Judge in New Jersey, advising that based upon the Governor’s signing statement and the prior legislative history and purpose of the Act itself, the AOC’s interpretation of the new cause of action of irreconcilable differences was that it was applicable not only to divorce, but to dissolution of civil unions as well.16 See. Appendix A. Judge Jones opined that it was logical to
conclude that the civil union statute should have been expressly amended to include
irreconcilable differences as a ground for dissolution, but that was not done because of “drafter
oversight” due to the timing between the enactment of the two statutes.
Judge Jones was unable to ascertain any public policy reason for permitting married
couples the opportunity to obtain a divorce on no-fault grounds while denying this right to
13
couples in civil unions. Judge Jones further reasoned that settlement of litigation is an important
public policy in this state, and having a statute that requires litigants to blame the other,
discourages settlement. The Appellate Division, in January 2015, affirmed Judge Jones’
decision in Groh v. Groh. As such, same-sex couples may now dissolve their civil unions on grounds of irreconcilable differences.
Termination of Domestic Partnerships
N.J.S.A. §26:8A-10 governs the termination of domestic partnerships. The process commences by filing, in the Family Part of the Superior Court in the County where venue is laid, a Complaint for Termination of the Domestic Partnership. Termination of a domestic partnership may be adjudged for the following causes:
• voluntary sexual intercourse between a person who is in a domestic partnership
and an individual other than the persons domestic partner;
• willful and continued desertion for a period of 12 or more consecutive months,
which may be established by satisfactory proof that the parties have ceased to
cohabit as domestic partners;
• extreme cruelty, which is defined as including any physical or mental cruelty that
endangers the safety or health of the plaintiff or makes it improper or
unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue to cohabit with the defendant;
except that no complaint for termination shall be filed until after three months
from the date of the last act of cruelty complained of in the complaint, but this
provision shall not be held to apply to any counterclaim;
• Separation, provided that the domestic partners have lived separate and apart in
different habitations for a period of at least 18 or more consecutive months and
14
there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation; and provided further that, after
the 18 month period, there shall be a presumption that there is no reasonable
prospect of reconciliation;
• voluntarily induced addiction or habituation to any narcotic drug, as defined in the
New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act or the Comprehensive Drug
Reform Act of 1987, or habitual drunkenness for a period of 12 or more
consecutive months subsequent to establishment of the domestic partnership and
next preceding the filing of the complaint;
• institutionalization for mental illness for a period of 24 or more consecutive
months subsequent to establishment of the domestic partnership and next
preceding the filing of the complaint; and
• imprisonment of the defendant for 18 or more consecutive months after
establishment of the domestic partnership, provided that where the action is not
commenced until after the defendants release, the parties have not resumed
cohabitation following imprisonment.
A domestic partnership will also be automatically terminated in the event that the couple marries or enters into a civil union.
1 N.J.S.A.§37:1-6. 2 Minder v. Minder, 83 N.J. Super. 159 (Ch. Div. 1964). 3 Id. 4 Marriage, Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions: Same-Sex Couples Within the United States, NCLR (2015). 5 Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006). 6 Garden State Equality v. Dow, 434 N.J. Super. 163 (2013). 7 United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). 8 N.J.S.A. § 26:8A-4.1 9 N.J.S.A. §26:8A-4 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 N.J.S.A. §2A:34-8-10 15
15 Groh v. Groh, 2014 N.J. Super LEXIS 182 (2014). 16 Groh v. Groh, 2014 N.J. Super LEXIS 182 (2014).
16
Families by Design
Jodi A. Argentino, Esq.
From where we’ve come…..
Over the past 40 years, while TV Pop Culture has gone from The Cleavers in their traditional nuclear family, through Different Strokes with adoptive families, One Day at Time with single parent families, through to the blended family of The Brady Bunch and now to the truly unique structure of The New Normal with surrogate and/or contracted family arrangements and Modern Family, a true mix of what I like to call “happenstance,” our Courts in New Jersey have actually mimicked the same patterns.
We’ve moved from the stereotypical nuclear family paradigm of the 1960s, through the expansion of the concept of “family.” While not anywhere near comprehensive, I take this opportunity to point out a few cases that highlight the parallel with ‘pop’ culture shared on TV in the past 4 decades.
S.M. v. S.J., 143 N.J. Super. 379 (1976): The Court awarded a stepfather custody over a biological mother even though the mother was fit and able to care for her children. Katterman v. Di Piazza, 151 N.J.Super. 209, 376 (1977): A birth mother was granted visitation rights with her child even after her parents had adopted the child. Palermo v. Palermo, 164 N.J. Super. 492 (1978): The Court granted custody to a stepmother over a biological father where the child had lived with the step-mother for a period of time after the biological mother had died. Miller v. Miller 97 N.J. 154 (1984): Court found that stepfather could have duty to support stepchildren under concept of equitable estoppel due to the fact that he had deliberately caused the children to rely upon him as if he were their natural father during his 7+ year marriage to their mother. In re Adoption of a Child by J.M.G. 267 N.J.Super. 622 (1993): Trial court writes on case of first impression determining adoption law permits adoption of child by partner of bio mom without terminating bio mom’s rights. In re Adoption of Two Children by H.N.R. 285 N.J. Super. 1 (1995): Appellate Division (Judge Pressler writing) extends definition of “step parent” to lesbian partner of bio mom in adoption matter paving way for “second parent” adoptions V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (2000): The Court determined that if a person acting as a parent to a child (who was not otherwise a legal parent through birth or adoption) could be deemed equal to that child's legal parent(s) bases upon the satisfaction of 4 elements: (1) The biological or adoptive parent consented to, and fostered, the would-be parent’s establishment of the parent- like relationship with the child; (2) the child resided with the would-be parent; (3) the would-be parent assumed the obligations of parenthood; (4) the would-be parent has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature. In re Parentage of Robinson, 383 N.J. Super. 165 (2005): This was a case that came before the Civil Union Act (that was enacted in New Jersey on February 19, 2007). Relying in great part upon the Artificial Insemination Statute, N.J.S.A. 9:17-44(a) paired with the parties’ establishment of themselves as a family to the extent same was legally available to them, the Court determined that both parties would be entitled to be considered legal parents of the child at the time of the child’s birth regardless of biological or gestational maternity. KAF v DLM 437 N.J Super. 123 (App. Div, 2014): Psychological parentage case wherein the Court explored the standard in V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (2000) as applied to a same-sex couple and the issue of whether consent of both legal parents was necessary to meet the first prong of the VC psychological parent analysis and determined that consent of one is sufficient.
To where we are going….
With the expansion of family, the Court has recognized that not every family is made up of one mom and one dad, but that there can be really any combination of individuals who are connected in a parent- like way to a child and the focus does, and should, remain on what relationships are most advantageous to maintain in furtherance of the best interest of the subject child, and creating legal security and permanency for the child in those relationships.
With that said, aside from the parental relationships that are formed by “happenstance” (such as unintended pregnancies via extramarital relationships or other “DIY” methodologies gone astray), same- sex couples generally create their families by design utilizing any combination of artificial reproductive technology methods, surrogacy, adoption or by remarriage or relationships formed subsequent to a child’s birth. In New Jersey, due to the institution of marriage equality, paired with our parentage1 and adoption statutes, children born of same-sex couples can be considered legally the children of those parents permitted that the methodologies instituted by the intended parents follow the parameters set forth in our various statutes and caselaw. (See NJ Parentage and Adoption Statutes, N.J.S.A 9:17-38 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 9:3-27 et seq., respectively.)2
However, in those happenstance situations, into which, for the moment, I will include marriages/relationships which occur after the birth of a child, we rely on more equitable and creative arguments to ensure that a family is considered family under the law. (eg: V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (2000), KAF v DLM, 437 N.J Super. 123 (App. Div, 2014))
1Due to the way New Jersey’s parentage act is currently drafted, it does not address parentage presumptions as to same-sex male couples who utilize surrogacy to have a child born of their marriage. 2 What happens where the laws collide? In California, this occurred with In re MC (Los Angeles Court Super. Ct. No CK790 91 2011) wherein the trial Court determined that under their parentage act, there were actually three presumptive legal parents and decided that they were in no position to decide whose rights would take priority over the other. The Appellate Division in California determined the trial Court did not have that authority, but before a remand could take place forcing the Trial court to “choose,” the Legislature stepped in and created a law that specifically allowed the Court to determine that a child could have more than two legal parents. CA Family Code Section 7601 (2013). In Canada, a similar core issue faced their Courts and the Courts independently determined that there would be a detriment to the child if the child were not afforded all the legal rights and responsibilities of the three individuals in that child’s life being named legal parents. A.A. v. B.B. 2007 ONCA 2.
What happens when our Courts are faced with custody litigation that involves parties who do not fit the nuclear family paradigm? As we saw earlier, back to the 1970s, the Court awarded custody of a child to a stepmother over a biological father and a stepfather over a biological mother based upon the best interest of the child. Before VC gave us psychological parentage? Was that possible? In a Court of equity, I think anything is possible…
Questions for our Judges:
What considerations are persuasive to the Court with regard to same-sex couple in custody litigation? The gender roles previously relied upon cannot be so relied upon….how is this viewed?
Can a biological mother assert that her soon-to-be-ex-Wife has a lesser custodial right to a child because the non-biological mother did not bear the child? There is no (dreaded) tender years’ presumption anymore….but even if there were, how would it apply to a same-sex female couple?
What if there was an allegation that the confirmatory adoption3 of the child was fraudulently procured to give the non-biological mother an accelerated right in a contemplated custody battle? How would the court deal with this allegation?
And how we get there…
When considering what is in the best interests of a child in a litigation setting, we all know that experts in the form of a forensic psychologist or clinic social worker (or Guardian ad Litem) will be assigned to aid the Court in considering the factors of our custody statute (New Jersey Rule of Court 5:3-3). However, when litigation involves non-traditional family structures, some of the more traditional techniques of these individuals may not be appropriate and evaluations should be even more carefully approached.
First and foremost, we have to fully address the expert’s background and experience. Experts are people too (as are Judges and attorneys!) Sometimes, simply due to lack of exposure or innate personal views, a particular expert who may be wonderful at assessing another type of case, may not be appropriate for evaluating a family structure that involves a same-sex couple, a multi-parent family, or a family involving a transgender parent or transgender child. The expert assigned or chosen in any case
3 “Confirmatory adoption” is a phrase used by practitioners of LGBT Adoption work to indicate the adoption of a child by the non-biological mother of a female same-sex couple who are married or in a civil union. The parentage of the child seated in both mothers, but due to the non-ubiquitous nature of marriage equality, parentage based solely upon marital presumption may be challenged in non-recognition states and/or countries. Therefore, an adoption of the child by the non-biological mother is still recommended. involving LGBT individuals or any different-than-traditional family structure must have no inherent bias and must have an openness and respect for the family that was created, regardless of what the ideal family structure might mean to them personally.4
Further, depending upon the situation, the often used personality testing such as the MMPI-2 (or MMPI- 2-RF)5 may not be appropriate due to the assumption of traditional gender roles and personalities that were utilized in creating the tests at their inception. Any peculiar test result can skew an entire evaluative process and if the standards utilized to create the test do not fit with the situation and/or individuals being assessed, then same test should not be utilized as a factor within the evaluation.
In complex parentage and non-traditional family structures, even more than in traditional family situations, there is a disadvantage created by heading straight for counsel table and passing up opportunities for families to learn to work together towards creative solutions. This is amplified by the pitfalls of traditional litigation and traditional evaluative methods along with the lack of guidance on point. For all of these reasons, we recommend alternative dispute resolution methodologies as a positive choice for our clients due to the reduced negative impact (emotionally and financially) on the family as a whole, and on children primarily (in all situations, not just those applied to the LGBT community).
With the same premise as different-sex couples in this situation, parties get to take ownership and responsibility for the result of their matter if utilizing ADR methodologies. However, in LGBT and non- traditional families this is even more important due to the aforementioned lack of on-point caselaw giving the Court guidance as to how to handle these unique situations.
For example:
What specific caselaw provides guidance for the Court when a same-sex female couple who had a child during the marriage, including a confirmatory adoption, come to Court for a divorce after
4 In 2011, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released its “Child Custody Evaluation Standards” and while these standards aren’t binding to any group of mental health experts, the Committee who helped author the standards took into consideration the specifics inherent in the practice of family law, including those family law cases where LGBT issues arise, and adopted what they hoped would become uniform standards across the United States. Specifically, in Article 1, Training Education & Competency Issues, under Training (3), it says: “Areas of additional specialized training for a particular situation including, but not limited to: (g) sexual orientation issues.” Paragraph 4, which follows immediately after, states: Custody evaluators shall maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, keep abreast of development in the fields of psychology and the law, and engage in continuing study and education. Custody evaluators who are not competent in a specific area should demonstrate that they have consulted with a professional who is competent in that area, and disclose such consultation in their report. The information in this footnote is excerpted from the work of Sarah J. Jacobs, Esq. in “ISN’T IT ‘JUST’ A CUSTODY EVALUATION?” Special Concerns in Family Evaluations When LGBTQ Issues Are Involved LGBT Update 2015
5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2, Restructured Form, released in 2008. discovering that the child of the marriage, thought to be born of intrauterine insemination in a medical facility, was actually born of an extramarital affair? o Is the adoption void? o Does marital presumption trump paternity? o Does psychological parentage apply? What specific caselaw provides guidance for the Court when a polyamorous triad6 comes before the Court having raised children together as a family? o Does psychological parentage apply? o Is it is the child’s best interests to share time amongst all of the individuals this child knew as parents? o How is child support calculated and who receives it? o What if only one member of the polyamorous triad is separated from the remaining members?
The answer, of course, is that there is no specific caselaw on point. We, instead, take bits and pieces of prior cases and extrapolate, compare, contrast, and put them all together in a Frankenstein-like fashion in order to justify the decisions that are made, cross our fingers, and hope that the Judge gets it right (to the extent that our argument is ‘right.’) While this may be appealing to those of us who enjoy dealing with Bar Examination-type hypotheticals on a daily basis (this author is guilty as charged), it is often impractical for families to have to endure such uncertainty and experimentation, while daily life hangs in the balance.
However, if we can take those same arguments and principals and carefully pair them with the child- centered practicalities of what works for these families in real life (not just on paper) in an effort to foster and forward the best interests of the child(ren) involved, then the whole family benefits. In a heartfelt effort to conclude this thought while chasing rainbows7: the side effect of working with alternative dispute resolution methodologies in these unique family situations is that the parents learn better to co-parent (or tri-parent, as the case may be,) and the family ultimately owns and accepts their own destiny for the pure and unadulterated benefit of the child.
6 Polyamory is an approach to relationships that accepts the notion that someone can love more than one person at once. 7 (Pun fully intended)
Jodi A. Argentino is a Partner with Argentino & Jacobs, LLC, with offices in Morristown and Montclair, New Jersey. Argentino & Jacobs, LLC practices exclusively in the area of Family Law, and Jodi’s own practice is focused on LGBT families and complex parentage situations. She is also qualified by the State of NJ as a Family Law Mediator.
Jodi received her JD from Syracuse University College of Law in 2002, where she also received a Certification of Specialization in Family Law and Social Policy and was a Teaching Assistant for The Children’s Rights and Family Law Clinical Program. She was also an Editor of The Digest (Journal of the Italian-American Bar Association. Jodi then began her legal practice as a Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Deanne M. Wilson, J.S.C. and has worked for various firms focusing her practice in the area of Family Law.
Jodi is an active volunteer in the legal community. She is a member of the National LGBT Bar Association, an admitted member of the Family Law Institute of the National LGBT Bar Association, and a member of the New Jersey Bar Association (NJSBA). Jodi is also the 2015-2016 Vice Chair of the NJSBA LGBT Rights Section, a member of the NJSBA Family Law Section, a member of the Solo and Small Firm Section, and a Family Law subcommittee member of the Morris County Bar Association. Jodi has also served with the District X Fee Arbitration Committee of the NJ Office of Attorney Ethics.
Jodi has written extensively on the subject of Family Law and LGBT issues, maintains a Family Law blog, is a contributing author for the NJSBA LGBT Rights Section Newsletter, and has been a speaker for various organizations including NJICLE, the LGBT Bar Association, and for the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. Jodi is a member of BiLaw, a national organization promoting the voice of Bisexuals, and assisted with the production of BiLaw’s Amicus Brief in support of the pending marriage case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She also is a founder of LGBTeach, LLC, an organization which provides LGBT-related continuing education courses and diversity training.
Jodi resides in Montclair, NJ with her Wife, Randi and three sons, the youngest of which are twins conceived via co-maternity. Robyn B. Gigl Robyn is the managing partner of Stein, McGuire, Pantages & Gigl, LLP in Livingston, New Jersey. Her practice involves handling complex litigation including employment law, commercial and business litigation and white-collar criminal defense. She is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Robyn is the current Chair of the LGBT Rights Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, as well as a member of the Labor and Employment Law Section, Women in the Profession Section, and the Diversity Standing Committee. She is also on the Executive Board of Garden State Equality and on the Board of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Robyn is the Co-author of the Chapter “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” published in Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace (BNA - 2014); as well as several other articles that have appeared in the New Jersey Lawyer Magazine and the LGBT Rights Section’s newsletter.
She is a frequent speaker on LGBT employment and discrimination issues, including programs sponsored by the New Jersey Judicial College, EEOC, NJICLE, NJSBA, University of Virginia Law School, Rutgers University and the Bar of the City of New York.
Robyn is AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has been selected since 2010 as a New Jersey Super Lawyer.
Robyn is a graduate of Stonehill College, and Villanova University School of Law where she was a Member and Associate Editor of the Villanova Law Review.
Jeralyn L. Lawrence [email protected]
Jeralyn L. Lawrence commenced employment at Norris, McLaughlin and Marcus, P.A., in 1997, following her clerkship with the Hon. Herbert S. Glickman, J.S.C., in Essex County from September 1996 to September 1997. She devotes her practice to matrimonial, divorce and family law and is a trained collaborative lawyer and divorce mediator. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Law Attorney, Jeralyn has worked with clients whose needs lie in all areas of matrimonial and family law, including divorce litigation, mediation and arbitration, custody and parenting time issues, alimony and child support, separation and property settlement agreements, adoption and guardianship advice, Areas of Practice domestic partnership matters under the Matrimonial & Family Law Domestic Partnership Act, domestic violence and sexual abuse, and palimony. Alternative Dispute Resolution She takes great pride and care in helping her clients make it through these Collaborative Law difficult personal matters. Through collaborative law, Jeralyn assists and guides Arbitration/Mediation clients who are committed to resolving their matter without court intervention through the divorce process. Lawrence is Chair of the Family Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) and Senior Editor of New Bar Admissions Jersey Family Lawyer, the official publication of the Section; and President- New Jersey Elect of the Somerset County Bar Association. She is also a Fellow of the U.S. District Court American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and sits of its Board of Managers. District of New Jersey Jeralyn has been certified by the Academy as a Family Law Arbitrator. U.S. Supreme Court To complement the breadth of her matrimonial, divorce and family law Education practice, Jeralyn involves herself in various professional engagements Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., outside the firm. She frequently serves as a speaker and panelist at divorce summa cum laude, 1996 and family law programs and seminars, and has presented over 65 times at Kean University, B.A., 1992 various programs, both in New Jersey and out-of-state. Jeralyn has also authored and been quoted in over 80 publications that have appeared in various media venues. She has been admitted to the rosters of Mediators for Professional Affiliations Economic Aspects of Family Law Cases and of Custody and Parenting Time New Jersey State Bar Association Cases for Somerset County. She serves on the Matrimonial Certification Chair, Family Law Section; Board of Trustees; Committee that oversees the statewide matrimonial attorney certification Associate Managing Editor, New Jersey Family process, and on the Women's Political Caucus of New Jersey's Board of Lawyer Directors.. In her spare time, Jeralyn is an attorney volunteer at the Resource Somerset County Bar Association Center of Somerset County. She is also a volunteer attorney with the New President-Elect; Family Law Committee; Jersey State Bar Military Legal Assistance Program, providing pro bono legal Somerset County Domestic Violence Working assistance to New Jersey residents who have served overseas or active duty Group, Family Law Section of the armed forces after September 11, 2001. American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys Board of Managers; Fellow Jeralyn was a recipient of the 2014 New Jersey Professional Lawyer of the New Jersey Women Lawyers Association Year Award from the New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law, which honors attorneys whose character, competence, and commitment to the New Jersey Association of Professional highest professional standards mark them as outstanding members of the bar. Mediators She was honored by NJBiz as one of New Jersey’s 2011 Best 50 Women in New Jersey Supreme Court Business, and was selected as the 2009 Kean University Distinguished Matrimonial Certification Committee Alumna, the preeminent award for alumni, by the Kean University Alumni New Jersey Association of Justice Association. Jeralyn was honored as an Outstanding Woman in Somerset New Jersey Collaborative Law Group County for 2008 by the Somerset County Commission On the Status Of International Academy of Collaborative Women. She received the Young Lawyers Division’s Professional Professionals Achievement Award, and has received the Annual Legislative Recognition Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Award from the New Jersey State Bar Association in 2007, 2013 and 2014. A American Bar Association graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and a member of the Central New Jersey Inns of Court, she is also a graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and a member and barrister of the Central New Jersey Inns of Court.
Jeralyn has been selected as one of the New Jersey Super Lawyers in the Family Law section for several years, and The American Institute of Family Law Attorneys named her one of the “10 Best” Attorneys for the State of New Jersey. She was also named to Top 100 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Top 50 Female New Jersey Super Lawyers. She is listed in The Best Lawyers in America under Family Law and Family Law Mediation. In addition, Jeralyn was selected by her peers as one of New Jersey’s Top 10 matrimonial lawyers under the age of 40, and was recognized by the New Jersey Law Journal as one of 40 accomplished and promising attorneys in New Jersey under the age of 40.
AMY ZYLMAN SHIMALLA
Amy Shimalla is a graduate of Rutgers University (with highest honors) and of Seton Hall Law School. She is a partner with Shimalla, Wechsler, Lepp & D’Onofrio, LLP in Warren, New Jersey where she limits her practice to Family Law, Collaborative Divorce, Mediation, and Arbitration. Ms. Shimalla is certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a Matrimonial Law Attorney and accredited by the New Jersey Association of Professional Mediators (NJAPM) as a divorce and custody mediator.
Ms. Shimalla co-founded the custody mediation program in Somerset County and she serves as a mediator under the Statewide Economic Mediation Program. Ms. Shimalla is a member of the NJSBA Family Law Executive Committee. She is co-president of the Association for the Advancement of Collaborative Practice. She is a Past President of the New Jersey Collaborative Law Group and a past member of the Statewide Collaborative Counsel. She is also a member and Co-Chair of the Somerset County Bar Association Family Practice Committee. She is a member of the New Jersey Divorce Arbitration Association and The New Jersey Association for Justice. She is also Chair of the Supreme Court Matrimonial Certification Committee.
Ms. Shimalla is Chair of the District XIII Ethics Committee. She is a former President of the Somerset County Bar Association and former Trustee from Somerset County to the New Jersey State Bar Association. She is also Past Chair of the NJSBA Task Force on Diversity and Past Chair of the NJSBA Women in the Profession Section. Ms. Shimalla is also the recipient of the Year 2000 New Jersey Commission on Professionalism Attorney of the Year award for Somerset County.
Ms. Shimalla is a frequent lecturer for various groups, including the Institute for Continuing Legal Education. She is on the faculty of their Bi-Annual Mediation Training, the Annual Advanced Mediation Training, Collaborative Law Training and Annual Family Law Summer Institute Programs.