to pay arrearages and future payments); In re Marriage of Hamilton, 857 P.2d 542, 544 (Colo.Ct.App.1993) (finding that in addition to obligor’s incarceration, the court must consider the intentional nature of the crime, financial circumstances, likelihood of future income, and any possible intention to evade the support obligation). III. This court must determine whether the Family Part correctly found that defendant’s incarceration was a voluntary act that precludes him from complete or partial relief from his child support obligation during his incarceration. Child support is a continuous duty of both parents. Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, App. IX-A § 1 (2000). The right to child support is the child’s. Martinetti v. Hickman, 261 N.J.Super. 508, 512, 619 A.2d 599 (App.Div.1993) (<HOLDING>). Even non-custodial parents whose earnings are
holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal holding that a parent has a right of custody by reason of that parents ne exeat right the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel holding that the right to support is not subject to waiver by either parent