## Facts

- David Richard Hand had three children with three different mothers: one lived with him (as custodial parent), and two lived with Susan Marie Harte and T.B., respectively (each receiving support from Hand).
- Hand previously consented in both matters to imputed annual income of $57,200 for calculating his child-support obligations.
- Hand suffered a serious workplace injury and later received a $1.2 million settlement (with claimed net proceeds after obligations).
- In 2011, after enforcement litigation, Hand moved to reduce child support in both cases, asserting he could not earn the imputed income through wages and investments; the Family Part denied relief but indicated it would reconsider with a competent vocational report.
- On reconsideration, Hand submitted a vocational report asserting potential earnings of about $36,514 annually as a truck driver.
- The Family Part rejected the vocational report as a net opinion, found no prima facie showing of changed circumstances, recalculated support under the Child Support Guidelines by treating each mother’s matter largely separately, and awarded Harte $600 in counsel fees.
- Hand appealed the child-support orders, the denials of reconsideration, and the counsel-fee award; the Appellate Division consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. How should child support be calculated under the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines when an obligor has multiple families, to account for obligations to all children?
2. Whether the obligor’s vocational report was properly rejected as a net opinion and, if so, whether the obligor failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances warranting modification of imputed income.
3. Whether the counsel-fee award to Harte was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Reversed and remanded the child-support calculations because they did not adequately account for Hand’s financial obligations to all three children.
- Affirmed the finding that the vocational report was a net opinion and did not establish a prima facie showing of changed circumstances to revisit the consented-to imputed income.
- Affirmed the $600 counsel-fee award to Harte as within the trial court’s discretion.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

## Legal Principles

- In multi-family situations, child-support calculations must account for the obligor’s legal obligations to all dependent children so that one household is not favored due to case sequencing or isolated calculation.
- Trial courts applying the Child Support Guidelines in multiple-family cases must use a rational, coordinated method that reflects total obligations across households and explains the basis for the allocation.
- A party seeking modification of child support must first present a prima facie showing of changed circumstances before obtaining further discovery or a plenary hearing.
- An expert vocational opinion that is conclusory and lacks adequate factual foundation and analysis may be rejected as a net opinion and cannot satisfy the prima facie threshold for modification.
- Counsel-fee awards in family matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are upheld when supported by the relevant factors and adequate findings.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required recalculation of child support using a method that considers the obligor’s obligations to all children across multiple households, while upholding the denial of modification because the vocational report was an unsupported net opinion and affirming a modest counsel-fee award.


Harte v. Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 2013)