Most of us have developed fighting agreements, including provisions that use some or all of the children`s money to cover the cost of education or other child-related obligations. This section deals with adequacy when these deposit funds are held in an account created under the New Jersey Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA).  However, I believe that the minutes prepared by this proposed language are consistent with the trend in the appeal division`s cases, which are beginning to become more aware of the Newburgh factor than in the past. However, practitioners should be cautioned that the case law is not yet clear as to whether it is reasonable or permissible to let parents decide that children must contribute before both parents are required to do so. This part of the above language should probably be modified based on the facts of a particular case, including, for example, how much money in the UTMA/UGMA accounts identified and may depend on whether parents can pay their own ability to pay for university by reducing gifts to the child. In addition, for reasons of reasoning, it will be interesting to see whether the Appeal Division ever is interested in whether the parents` expectations should be different if Inderine has not benefited from funds from the UTMA/UGMA account on the UTMA/UGMA account and/or if none of the parents is the custodian of the account in question. The above language should therefore be seen as the starting point for discussions, in the hope of reaching a consensus on how our divorce agreements can refer to children`s money. As marriage practitioners, we often represent divorce clients who have created UGMA or UTMA accounts for their children. Often, both parties agree that they intended to use the funds for their children`s educational expenses and that they probably did not realize that they were giving irrevocable gifts to children and that the funds should not necessarily be used as donors wanted.