## Facts

- Husband (J.R.) and wife (L.R.) married in 1988 and had two children during the marriage: Nicholas (biological child of J.R.) and Jessica.
- During the marriage, L.R. had a single sexual encounter with S.G., became pregnant, and did not disclose the affair; J.R. believed Jessica was his child and raised her as his daughter for almost ten years.
- Years later, L.R. told J.R. that S.G. was Jessica’s biological father; the marriage ended, and the parties relocated separately before returning to New Jersey.
- L.R. initially sought child support from J.R. for both children; the court entered a support order for Nicholas and Jessica.
- At J.R.’s request, genetic testing determined J.R. was not Jessica’s biological father; the court modified J.R.’s support obligation to cover only Nicholas.
- L.R. then pursued a paternity action against S.G.; the matters were consolidated with J.R.’s related custody/support motions.
- After plenary hearings, the court ordered genetic testing of S.G., found him to be Jessica’s biological father, found Jessica’s support needs to be $150 per week, and ordered S.G. and J.R. to each pay $75 per week.
- S.G. appealed; J.R. and L.R. did not appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a biological father may be ordered to pay child support when a non-biological, psychological/putative father is also ordered to contribute to the child’s support.
2. Whether the Family Part properly exercised equitable authority to allocate support between the biological father and the psychological/putative father based on the child’s best interests and the parties’ circumstances.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order requiring S.G. to pay $75 per week toward Jessica’s support.
- The court upheld the Family Part’s finding that Jessica’s needs were $150 per week and its allocation requiring both S.G. and J.R. to pay $75 per week.
- The court rejected S.G.’s challenge to the allocation and found no basis to disturb the Family Part’s factual findings and discretionary judgment following plenary hearings.

## Legal Principles

- Once paternity is established, a biological parent has a support obligation that is not negated by the child’s prior relationship with, or support from, a non-biological parental figure.
- In determining support, the child’s best interests are the primary consideration, including securing adequate financial support in light of the child’s circumstances and relationships.
- The Family Part has equitable authority, in appropriate circumstances, to structure child support obligations to reflect both legal parentage and the child’s reliance on an established parent-like relationship.
- Appellate review of support allocations is deferential where the trial court conducted plenary hearings and made supported factual findings regarding need and ability to pay.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an order allocating a child’s support between her confirmed biological father and the man who had functioned as her father for nearly a decade, holding that the biological father remains responsible for support and that the Family Part acted within its equitable discretion to protect the child’s best interests.


J.R. v. L.R., 386 N.J. Super. 475, 902 A.2d 261 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006)