## Facts

- The parties divorced in 1996 after a twelve-year marriage and had two minor daughters.
- The divorce judgment incorporated a settlement under which the father paid $2,400 per month in child support and contributed $800 per month toward private school tuition for 1996–1997, with later tuition to be negotiated.
- At divorce, the father earned about $180,000 annually; the mother had no income apart from short-term alimony.
- After alimony neared expiration, the mother sought increased child support; by then the father earned over $550,000 annually and the mother earned about $50,000 annually.
- Because the parties’ combined income exceeded the Child Support Guidelines ceiling, the modification required discretionary analysis rather than a purely guidelines-based calculation.
- The Family Part increased child support to $3,500 per month and ordered the father to pay 79% of private school tuition.
- The court appointed an attorney first to mediate ongoing economic disputes, and later also as guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children.
- The mother moved to remove the attorney based on the asserted conflict created by the dual mediator/GAL role; the motion was denied.
- The mother appealed aspects of two post-judgment orders (including child support, tuition allocation, and denial of removal of the mediator/GAL); the father cross-appealed on related financial issues.

## Issues

1. Whether a court-appointed attorney may serve simultaneously as a mediator for economic disputes and as a guardian ad litem representing the children in the same ongoing family litigation.
2. How child support should be modified when the payor is a high-income earner whose income exceeds the Child Support Guidelines maximum, including whether support should be linked mechanically to the income increase.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting financial discovery and in related fee and refund determinations.

## Decision

- Reversed the order denying removal of the attorney serving in the dual mediator/GAL capacity.
- Affirmed the increased child support award of $3,500 per month.
- Modified the tuition allocation to require the father to pay 100% of the children’s private school tuition.
- Affirmed the trial court’s discovery limits and, in all other respects, affirmed the challenged fee and refund rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A mediator’s neutral, confidential settlement-facilitation function is incompatible with a GAL’s investigative and advocacy responsibilities for the child’s best interests; one individual cannot serve in both roles in the same ongoing matter.
- When parental income exceeds the Child Support Guidelines ceiling, courts must exercise discretion guided by statutory child-support factors, including the children’s needs, each parent’s economic circumstances, and the obligor’s ability to pay.
- High-income child support may include additional benefits consistent with the children’s reasonable expectations and prior lifestyle, but courts should reject a strict proportionality formula that automatically ties support to income increases.
- In high-income cases, courts may allocate supplemental expenses such as private school tuition to the high-earning parent when supported by the record and the children’s best interests.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to manage and limit discovery in post-judgment support litigation, particularly where ability to pay is not meaningfully disputed.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that an attorney cannot simultaneously act as both mediator and GAL in the same family dispute, affirmed a discretionary child support increase for a high-income parent without using a mechanical income-percentage method, and required the father to pay all private school tuition while otherwise upholding the Family Part’s discovery and financial rulings.


Isaacson v. Isaacson, 792 A.2d 525 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)