I don't know about new jersey for sure, but check with other lawyers to see what they have to say.

Make certain they know that you have a child and are the sole support of that child since your stbx has abandoned him with you and refuses even to take a vacation with the kid. Make certan they know that his current lifesytle is his CHOICE since he deided to quit work and leave. Make certain they know that his current job is better than hsi previous jobs were when he was married and can certainly afford to support himself in the lower cost of his newly chosen hometown.

You will have to give up half your 401K if it was earned during the marriage. Some couples work things so that one person's money pays for the retirement, the other pays for the cars, that doesn't mean that one gets to keep the whole built up retirement account & the other only gets ot keep the cars. It's all split down the middle (in general, though ther eare some ways that it can be changed because a NOT QUITE 50-50 split is "equitable" if you can bring up extra stuff that makes it seem fair... the term "equitable" really only means "fair", and so if you can convince a judge that what you want is objectively FAIR ... not what you think is fair just because you were the frugal and productive one, but really fair as in you get an equal chance to a future... you MAY convince a judge to change that).

You will probably be able to get him to be required to pay the debts off on the property he bought and keeps. and if he fails and/or refuses to refinance into his own name, you get to force him to sell that stuff (truck & whatever).

If he can support himself in some minimal fashion, in your circumstance and ESPECIALLY since the child is staying with you, I'd be surprised if anyone said that you would for SURE owe him alimony. Alimony is never a certainty, even in the most obvious of cases, and yours if far from obvious. It depends upon whether you can convince the judge that your point of view is the correct & fair point of view.

Do NOT spend a lot of time complaining that he shoudl earn more and doesn't... because he'll say he CAN"t, and that is the standard for saying that it's fair that he should get it. Instead, focus on the fact that he CHOSE to leave, and quit his job, and not take care of his child, and you have ended up doing all this. Don't say that YOU have paid all the debt because you are the only one with income, but that you have been barely keeping your head above water with minimal payments and additional help with loans on the house but that you've been doing the paperwork of trying to keep from going under because he has shown himself to be irresponsible and his failure to pay even his own car (when he certainly could have gotten a job at circle K at least to pay the stupid car payment) was threatening YOUR credit rating.

if you approach it THAT way, instead of acting like you're flipped roles and were the higher earning and responsible man of the house nad he was the lower earner... then you have a chance. Jump on the bandwagon of protesting the concept of alimony and how higher earners shouldn't have to pay lower earners... THAT will be a bad position for you to take if you want to win. Your INDIVIDUAL circumstances are the circumstances that make it likely that you will win, and the fact that he abandoned you with the 6 year old is probably going to come into HUGE play here. Women who get alimony are NOT the ones who abandoned their young children to the care of their husbands and enver even take a week vacation with the kid when they arent' working & certainly would ave had the free time!

I can't believe there's a state around still where the standard for awarding alimony is anything like maintaining the receiving spouse in "the style to which they are accustomed" (a version of your "equalizing the lifestyle" claim)! This is an archaic concept from a time when women couldn't work and men were trying to cut them & the kids off with nothing, and so courts stepped in to make certain the kids of rich men were not living at poverty level, and to make certain women who had been married & homemakers for years (which was the only option for most women at the time) were not cut off at the knees when they started getting a little older... it was a way to assure that a man didn't take a woman's best years and then abandon her with nothing for her retirement. It is no longer needed for that purpose, so the "style to which she's become accustomed" standard is no longer really used.

Some common standards are whether or not either party contributed to the other's education or career mobility, or whether either encouraged the other to NOT seek education, NOT maintain or progress in their career. The man who WANTS his wife to stay at home and home school the kids, for example, can't expect to divorce her when the kids are 10 & 11 years old, and net pay alimony!

Another standard is what the receiving spouse will need to get back on thier feet & up to speed in thier own career of choice. If Donald Trump marries a teacher, for example, and encourages her to quit her job and travel with him, when he divorces her (well, this won't be a great example becasue the super-rich ALWAYS owe support even if it's NOT fair, just because the judges get blind by super-stardom, but take my example as something that would happen on a lesser scale to him if he wer eNOT super-rich)... if he divorced the teacher 10 years later, and she needed 2 years worth of updating her skills to get back to work, he'd probably owe her a little alimony for 2 years for her to update her skills, go to school or renew her license, whatever... and THEN they'd taper it off and go to nothing for alimony pretty darned quick, because she'd be supporting herself in her career of choice. He should not have to pay more just because she chose a low-paying career, is the general idea (though if the careers are SUPER different, they might give a LITTLE just because... well, JUST "because").

And they usually consider who it is that ended up with the kid, who ended up with most of the debt, who ended up with the house, when they decide on alimony. If you had the kid, it's likely the decision will be in your favor. If you took on the unsecured debt (the stuff that was NOT associated with the house, car, piano, timeshhare... THAT debt goes to whoever gets the house, car, piano & timeshare), that will be in your favor. If you got the house and re going to be staying in it for the saek fo the kid, it's likely to go in your favor that you'll have to pay a mortgage to make ends meet.

And another consideration is how much of the other property he got, or what other resources he has. It's not fair for you to split the retirement account with him and then never be able to retire at all because you ahve to still pay alimony to him after the natural retirement date. If he got half the retirement account, and also got you to pay him alimony during your working years, they SHOULD say that it ends at the time of retirement (make certain they do that, if it gets that far).

I'll look for NJ, but I can't believe it's so archaic that they are still making guys live in poverty so that the former wives will be able to live in the style they used ot have ... or that they are making the guys pay the whole lifestyles of the former wives... I suspect if you check with a few more attorneys you'll find that the likelihood that you'll have to pay alimony is THERE, but LOW.

Don't hire anyone who PROMISES that you'll never have to pay... but be careful abotu someone who starts off in a sitaution where YOU get the kid, the debt AND the alimony obligatoin... that sounds like someone who doesn't do a whole lot of family law... or maybe hwo wants to lower your expectations so that anythign you get will seem good?

I'll run to NJ alimony laws & check, but I can't believe they have hard & fast rules that would make you pay in your sitaution.