Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 2012). Should child support change because the child has begun to live on campus at a college? Judge Lihotz, writing for the panel in this case, ruled that “attendance at college is a change in circumstance warranting review of the child support amount. However, there is no presumption that a child’s required financial support lessens because he or she attends college.” Each case must turn on its own facts and on the factors of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23a. Reflexively using the Child Support Guidelines of Rule 5:6A (“Guidelines”) “to make support calculations for college students living away from home is error.” Since the Family Part had done just that, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Though the abuse of discretion standard of review of child support decisions was applicable here, as Judge Lihotz observed, the Family Part did not explain why use of the Guidelines was appropriate on these facts.
Defendant made a law of the case argument, asserting that a previously fixed formula should control. Judge Lihotz discussed law of the case in some detail, but rejected that idea. She noted that each child’s personal circumstances, and the finances of the child’s parents, “reflect fluid circumstances obviating the rote application of a static formula.” Nor did plaintiff’s decision not to appeal the order imposing the prior formula bar her from seeking a different calculation when a child began college. “There are many reasons– personal and financial– why a litigant might choose not to appeal an order, even if convinced its conclusions might be incorrect.” Although Judge Lihotz did not specifically say so, the prior order was presumably an interlocutory ruling, appeals of which are strongly discouraged.
Child support should not necessarily decrease once a child goes to live at college. “Although the child support needs lessened in certain areas such as room and board, arguably other necessary expenses may increase when a child goes to college.” Judge Lihotz listed a number of illustrative examples. On remand, the Family Part was directed to apply the N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23a criteria under the particular facts and circumstances.