News

New Jersey Law Journal

Adoptee Living With Biological Father Loses Child Support

James Shewchuk’s attorney, Blackwood solo Maury Cutler, said both courts were correct in their rulings.

“Adrianna, on her own, voluntarily left her mother and reunited with her biological father, whom she hadn’t seen in 18 years,” Cutler said. “Once a child has left the parents’ sphere of influence, she is no longer dependent.”

Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal
April 13, 2015

A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a divorced father whose adopted college-age daughter has decided to live with her biological father no longer has to pay child support.

In a reported decision April 13, the three-judge Appellate Division panel in Llewelyn v. Shewchuk agreed with the adoptive father, James Shewchuk, that his 20-year-old daughter, Adrianna Shewchuk, voluntarily removed herself from his care and that of her mother and that he should no longer be required to be even partially responsible for her financial care.

Appellate Division Judge Garry Rothstadt, joined by Judges Marie Lihotz and Marianne Espinosa, said Camden County Superior Court Judge Kathleen Delaney was correct in granting James Shewchuk’s motion to have Adrianna Shewchuk declared emancipated.

The case is similar to another case from Camden County that drew national attention last year when a judge ordered a divorced couple, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, to pay $16,000 in tuition so that their estranged daughter, Caitlyn Ricci, could attend Temple University.

Caitlyn Ricci sued her parents in 2013 after leaving McGarvey’s house following a dispute and moved into Michael Ricci’s parents’ house.

That case, too, is on appeal.

Adrianna Shewchuk was born to Lisa Llewelyn and a former husband, who was not identified in the appeals court’s opinion, in 1992. Llewelyn and James Shewchuk were married in 1994, and he adopted Adrianna that same year.

Llewelyn and James Shewchuk divorced in 2002, and they agreed to joint custody with James Shewchuk agreeing to make child support payments and help pay for Adrianna Shewchuk’s college expenses, according to the opinion.

James Shewchuk filed a motion to be relieved of his obligations in April 2013 after learning that Adrianna Shewchuk, who graduated from high school in 2011, had moved out of her mother’s house and was living with her biological father and his wife, and was no longer attending school, the opinion said. His ex-wife eventually supported his motion.

Adrianna Shewchuk, in response, confirmed her new living arrangement, but produced records that showed that she was attending a local community college, according to the opinion. She also presented proof that she was working at a donut shop, but only earning $7.75 an hour. She argued that she could not support herself and still needed the support she had been receiving from James Shewchuk.

Adrianna Shewchuk admitted that her biological father’s wife was paying a large portion of her college fees, the opinion said. She also produced proof that she was under a doctor’s care and was taking medication for depression and anxiety.

In ruling in favor of emancipation, Delaney relied on a 1997 Appellate Division ruling, Filippone v. Lee. In that case, a child had left the mother’s home and was being cared for by “other people.” That court concluded that “by her own choosing, she … moved beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by her parents, and she is now independent of her parents.”

Adrianna Shewchuk argued that even though she voluntarily moved in with her biological father and his wife, she continues to need the assistance of her adoptive father because she is a student and her biological father’s wife is under no legal obligation to help her.

“Appellant has presented no legal authority directly on point to support her claim she is not emancipated under these circumstances,” Rothstadt said.

On appeal, Adrianna Shewchuk cited a 1998 Chancery Division ruling, L.D. v. K.D., where a judge refused to emancipate a special-needs girl who, with the consent of the mother, moved into an apartment with roommates so she could finish her studies in the same school district.

“We find appellant’s situation to be extremely different,” Rothstadt said. “Although she provided information about her treatment for depression and anxiety, there was no evidence her issues interfered with her ability to be independent.

“It is undisputed she voluntarily left her mother’s home at the age of 20 to live with her biological father,” Rothstadt said. “She simply withdrew from her parents’ supervision and control, obtained part-time employment, sporadically attended school and arranged for her support in reliance upon the financial relationship she entered into with her biological father and his wife.”

Amanda Trigg, a lawyer who focuses her practice on family law and who was not involved in this case, said the court’s ruling was a logical one.

“She is an adult who is being held accountable for the decisions she made,” said Trigg, of Lesnevich & Marzano-Lesnevich in Hackensack. “If an adult child moves out of the house and all they want is the parent’s money, it’s hard to hold the parent responsible for that.”

Trigg said cases such as this point to the need for legislators, parents and the matrimonial bar to discuss changes that need to be made in the law to address changes in society.

“There has to be a conversation about emancipation,” she said.

James Shewchuk’s attorney, Blackwood solo Maury Cutler, said both courts were correct in their rulings.

“Adrianna, on her own, voluntarily left her mother and reunited with her biological father, whom she hadn’t seen in 18 years,” Cutler said. “Once a child has left the parents’ sphere of influence, she is no longer dependent.”

Adrianna Shewchuk’s attorney, Michael Albano of Albano & Viola in Runnemede, did not return a call seeking comment.

Contact the reporter at mbooth@alm.com.

Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.


 

Llewelyn v. Shewchuk
Family Law | Custody and Child Support
Adopted Child Emancipated Herself by Moving Into Biological Father’s Home
DDS No. 20-2-6451
April 13, 2015 (Date Decided)
Judge Rothstadt

For appellant adriana shewchuk: Michael P. Albano (Albano & Viola, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Albano, on the briefs).

For respondent James Shewchuk: Maury K. Cutler James Shewchuk

Appellant, the parties’ adult daughter, appealed from the Family Part’s order granting defendant’s motion to terminate child support because she was emancipated, which the court entered with plaintiff’s consent. Appellant appeared as an interested party. Adrianna argued that she was not emancipated as she had not moved beyond her parents’ sphere of influence or responsibility and had not obtained an independent status of her own.

Defendant argued that his adopted daughter’s voluntary actions resulted in her emancipation. According to defendant’s certification, appellant left plaintiff’s home and moved into her biological father’s home as of Jan. 1, 2013, she was not attending school and she was working. Plaintiff confirmed that appellant moved in with her biological father on Jan. 1, 2013. Plaintiff joined in defendant’s motion to emancipate appellant and consented to terminating the child support order and crediting defendant with any overpayment.

Appellant filed two certifications in opposition to defendant’s motion. In her first certification, she confirmed she left her mother’s home in December 2012 to live with her biological father. She further stated she was a full-time student at a community college. Appellant also confirmed that she was working part-time. Appellant argued she was not emancipated and could not support herself or live independently. According to appellant, her biological father and his wife were supporting her.

Appellant also filed a supplemental certification in which she confirmed that she was registered for classes at a community college and her biological father’s wife paid the bill.

Although appellant provided information about her treatment for depression and anxiety, there was no evidence these issues interfered with her ability to be independent. Also, there was no evidence of her parents providing her with support once she left her mother’s home. Rather, to the extent appellant required support, she voluntarily relied upon support provided by others who were not under any legal obligation to support her.

The trial court correctly determined that appellant failed to rebut the presumption of her emancipation. Appellant voluntary left her mother’s home at the age of 20 to live with her biological father. She withdrew from her parents’ supervision and control, obtained part-time employment, sporadically attended school and arranged for her support in reliance upon the financial relationship she entered into with her biological father and his wife. By her own choosing, appellant had moved beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by her parents and emancipated herself.