Plenary Hearing for Adult Child Support Allowed

Special Needs Answers case summary.The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, holds that a mother of an adult child with disabilities is entitled to a plenary hearing on whether her daughter is unemancipated such that the father must provide financial support. In Bencivenga v. Bencivenga (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. No. A-0484-22 January 8, 2024).

Laura Perry Bencivenga and her husband, Barrett D. Bencivenga, divorced when their daughter, R.B., was 18. The Marital Separation Agreement (MSA) addressed whether and how they would support R.B., as she had struggled with mental health problems since childhood. Since R.B. intended to join the Navy, the MSA stated that R.B. would become emancipated upon enlisting. However, the agreement provided that should she not enter the Navy, the parents would re-evaluate child support. If she became unemancipated, the parents would have to come to an agreement about health insurance and life insurance for her. Per the agreement, they were equally responsible for financially supporting R.B. The MSA also explained that R.B. would become emancipated when she turned 23 or lived permanently away from her parents.

R.B. tried to join the Navy after graduating high school. She failed the drug screening test. As a result, the Navy rejected her. Her parents agreed that there was no support obligation and permitted her to choose where to live.

Following a sexual assault, R.B. experienced homelessness, often sleeping in her car or staying at friends’ residences. She developed suicidal thoughts and plans and received inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and outpatient treatment. Without a permanent residence or steady job, she received Social Security disability benefits.

Her mother paid all her expenses except for dental insurance, which her father supplied via his employment. To provide financial support, Ms. Bencivenga used marital funds originally for their other daughter’s college education.

Ms. Bencivenga motioned for adjudication that her R.B. was not emancipated and to require the father to contribute financial support. She also submitted opinions from R.B.’s physicians, which demonstrated that R.B. had numerous mental health issues that affected her life. The father cross-motioned to emancipate R.B.

Sans oral argument, the lower court judge denied the mother’s motion and granted the father’s motion. The court reasoned that R.B. was outside her parents’ control, and the mother’s choice to provide financial support did not obligate the father to do the same. The decision did not reference the physician’s report.

Following an appeal, the appellate division considers whether the mother is entitled to a plenary hearing on her motion.

The presence of disputed facts on the record necessitates a plenary hearing. They need a hearing to understand the meaning of the MSA.

Although children are emancipated when they reach 18 and move beyond the sphere of parental influence, parents can contract to pay continued support. When parents agree to provide financial assistance to their adult children, they have contractual and equitable duties.

The lower court ignored two medical opinions illustrating R.B.’s disabilities, which evince factual disputes between the mother and father. It was a mistake for the judge to deny a hearing to resolve these disputes.

Once a child reaches the age of majority, the court presumes the child is emancipated. The burden shifts to the parent to show that the child is unemancipated. A child with a disability is unemancipated when the disability is severe and causes the child to be financially dependent on a parent. Child support ends at 23, per New Jersey law. However, the law permits parents to obtain court orders for continued financial assistance for children with disabilities.

The record shows that R.B. has multiple disabilities. The MSA demonstrates the parents’ concern for her future. A hearing is necessary to understand the parties’ intent concerning the MSA.

The appellate division reverses and remands the case for a plenary hearing.

Read the full opinion.