Child Custody Transfer To Father Stands While Awaiting Plenary Hearing

Custody of a 13 year old child was transferred from the mother to the father in Skinner v. Cole. The parties were never married and the mother, Janice Skinner, Plaintiff, was Noah's primary caregiver since birth as before he was 2 years old she and Noah moved to Pennsylvania while the father remained in New Jersey. When Noah was 13, the Defendant, Bruce Cole, Noah's father, filed a petition for custody claiming Noah desired to live with him, Plaintiff's relatives used drugs in the residence, the Plaintiff worked long hours and rarely gave him attention, and Noah was frequently subject to assaults in the school he attended at his mother's residence. Alternatively, the Defendant claimed to enjoy a good relationship with Noah and live in a drug-free environment with a good school district. Plaintiff's reply maintained that she enjoyed a good relationship with Noah, he had a glucose problem that the mother was used to managing properly while the father mismanaged the problem while Noah was visiting with him, the father's house offered inadequate quarters for Noah , and Noah was an honor roll student in his current school yet she was still seeking a better school system for him. The Plaintiff further added that the Defendant frequently lied to Noah to destroy his faith in his mother, that her family members did not use drugs, and the only reason for the Defendant's motion was to terminate child support. The trial judge interviewed Noah who expressed a desire to live with his father and offered positive reasons for the change and negative reasons for wishing to leave his mother's residence. The trial judge took no testimony from the parties and only briefly addressed some of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), which are required considerations in making custody decisions, then rendered the decision that custody of Noah would be transferred to the Defendant. The mother, Plaintiff, appealed the transfer of custody on the basis of the trial court's failure to hold a plenary hearing before rendering its decision. The NJ Appellate Decision considered the requirement of Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007) that a party seeking a modification of child custody must first demonstrate a change in circumstances substantial enough to affect the welfare of the child, especially when there are material issues of fact in dispute. Further, Faucett v. Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108, 119 (App. Div. 2009) wherein the court set forth that custody should only be modified after a full hearing unless exigent circumstances evidencing extreme danger are present. The NJ Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter for a plenary hearing to resolve the issues in dispute between the parties. It should be noted that, pending the plenary hearing following appeal, custody of Noah remained with the Defendant as the parent of primary residence rather than being returned to the mother. If you are seeking a modification in child custody or defending a motion filed by your child's other parent, it is critical that you are aware of the factors and procedures involved. For more information regarding child custody, child support, divorce, emancipation, relocation of a child or other family law matters in New Jersey, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Custody Modified After Parties Failed To Abide By Agreement

In Myers v. Myers, the Defendant appealed from the child custody and child support provisions issued in a 2013 final divorce judgment following a trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court after a careful review of the issues and the record. The parties in this case participated in a three day divorce trial in 2013. The final divorce judgment incorporated a partial stipulation of settlement which was filed in 2013. This partial settlement resolved many issues between the parties but left the issue of custody of their child and child support unresolved. Prior to the trial, in 2009, the parties executed a Consent Order that addressed the custody of their son. The child resided with each party on alternating weeks and on the weeks that each parent did not have the child they exercised parenting time on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. At trial, the Defendant proposed the same parenting time arrangement as was negotiated in the Consent Order. The Plaintiff sought a different schedule and requested that she be named the parent of primary residence. Her argument was that the prior arrangement never really took effect because after one month the Defendant moved back into the house with her and her son and that she had always been the one to take care of their son. She contended that the Defendant did very little with their son except to take him to practices and games. After the trial, the Court noted that after reviewing the relevant case law, it was guided by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 in making a custody determination. The judge found the Plaintiff's testimony to be credible and found that the Defendant did not cooperate in the Plaintiff's attempt to negotiate an agreed upon parenting time schedule. The judge determined that from the "defendant's own testimony and his own demeanor" that a shared custody arrangement would not be appropriate. The judge awarded primary residential custody to the Plaintiff. The Defendant was given 104 overnights a year with his son and from this determination the court established that the Defendant's child support obligation would be $143 a week. N.J. Court Rule 5:6A. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, regarding custody, the statute requires that the court consider multiple factors in determining the best interests of the child. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c). A court is required to place on the record the factors it considers consequential in reaching a custody decision, as the judge in this case had done. Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557, 565, 515 A.2d 1233 (App. Div. 1986). In this case the judge expressed a concern in the lack of cooperation between the parties mostly due to the Defendant's "problematic" behavior. The Appellate Division found that the Family Court judge clearly had the child's best interests in mind when he made the custody decision and subsequently the child support award. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you feel that it may be beneficial to you to submit an application to the court for a modification of your current child custody or parenting time arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, child support, divorce or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Decision To Award Sold Custody of Children Appealed

In Wu v. Liu, the Defendant appealed the decision of the New Jersey Family Court awarding sole child custody to his ex-wife and other issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1995 and emigrated to the United States from China shortly after that. They were married and divorced once before when they lived in China. In 1996, the Plaintiff gave birth to a daughter and a son was born in 2001. In 2011, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for divorce. The parties represented themselves in the divorce and the matter was tried as to all issues in the Family Court. In 2014, the judge issued the final judgment of divorce and awarded the Plaintiff with sole legal and residential custody of the children, ordered the Defendant to pay $297 a week in permanent alimony, and equitably distributed the parties' real property in Belle Mead and Princeton. The Defendant hired an attorney and an appeal was filed. The Defendant supplied transcripts of the divorce proceedings and his brief referenced the proceedings, but the Family Court judge's finding of fact and conclusions of law were not contained in the brief. Further, no statement of reasons were included with the divorce judgment. The Plaintiff, who represented herself in the appeal, filed her brief in opposition, the Appellate Court became aware that the Family Court judge had forwarded the judgment to the parties on the day it was filed along with a recording of his statement of reasons which were orally placed on the record. The Appellate Division, exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal, although the Defendant clearly violated the court rules. N.J. Court Rule 2:5-3(b), requires, with limited exception, that the "transcript shall include the entire proceedings in the court . . . from which the appeal is taken." Instead, the court ordered the Defendant to provide transcripts of the Family Court judge's findings and conclusions - which the Defendant complied with. The Defendant argued that the Family Court judge erred in denying his request for legal and physical custody of the children, amongst other issues. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court, citing that it applied the deferential standard that "[T]he decision concerning the type of custody arrangement [is left] to the sound discretion of the trial court[.] Nufrio v. Nufrio, 341 N.J. Super. 548, 555, 775 A.2d 637 (App. Div. 2001); Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. Super. 583, 611, 660 A.2d 485 (1995). Further, "Custody issues are resolved using a best interests analysis that gives weight to the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c)." Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105, 917 A.2d 269 (App. Div. 2007). The Defendant claimed that the judge ignored his evidence and relied "primarily" on the report of a psychologist who was appointed to evaluate the case by the judge pursuant to Court Rule 5:3-3. The expert's report cited the Defendant's repeated belief that a person in China whom the Defendant was calling "Mawei" was directing witchcraft at the family which caused all of the problems between he and his wife and children. The expert recommended that the Plaintiff have custody of the children, subject to supervised parenting time with the Defendant. According to the Appellate Division, the judge did much more than simply rely on the report as a basis for his custody decision in that the judge addressed all of the relevant statutory factors in detail, as well as, cited to the testimony of the parties and making credibility determinations as a result. The Appellate Division affirmed the judge's decision finding no reason to disturb the ruling. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you feel that it may be beneficial to you to submit an application to the court for a modification of your current child custody or parenting time arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, equitable distribution, divorce or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Grandmother Challenges Custody Of Child's Father

Reed v. Pettiford, is an Essex County case in which the Plaintiff, a child's father, was engaged in a custody dispute with the Defendant, the child's maternal grandmother. The Defendant appealed from the Family Court's 2013 Order which denied her application for sole legal and physical custody of her grandson. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The child's mother died in 2004 before he turned two years old. After his mother died, the child remained in the custody of the Plaintiff and the Defendant assumed custody of the child's half sister. Subsequently, the Family Court awarded both parties joint legal custody of the boy. In 2005, the Defendant wrote a letter to the court expressing her doubt that the Plaintiff was the child's biological father and asking the court to vacate the prior custody order. She did not legally challenge the Plaintiff's paternity at the time. Rather, she continued to allow the Plaintiff to have residential custody of the child by a private agreement. The boy had a visitation schedule with the Defendant for years. As he aged and became involved in school sports his visitation with the Defendant became sparse and in 2012 the Defendant filed an application with the court to compel the Plaintiff to present the child for visitation. The court ordered visitation. Following a N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best interests evaluation it was determined that the Plaintiff and Defendant could no longer communicate effectively with regard to the child and it was not in the best interest of child to have both the Plaintiff and Defendant share joint legal custody of him and to compel him to attend visitations with the Defendant. The Court issued a subsequent Order reflecting this change. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court holding that none of the Defendant's arguments on appeal were sufficient to warrant discussion in a written opinion pursuant to Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The court did note that the Defendant never properly challenged the Plaintiff's paternity under N.J.S.A . 9:17-38, the New Jersey Parentage Act which governs the issue of paternity in New Jersey. This Act was created to "establish the principle that regardless of the marital status of the parents, all children and parents have equal rights with respect to each other and to provide a procedure to establish parentage in disputed cases. Fazilat v. Feldstein, 180 N.J. 74, 82 (2004). The Plaintiff was never married to the child's mother, but he is presumptively his father under subsections a(4) and (5) of the Parentage Act because he received the child into his home, had supported him, and had always held him out to be his natural child. N.J.S.A. 9:17-43(a)-(5). Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, grandparent's rights, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Mediation Of Custody and Parenting Time Issues

In the recent Appellate Division case, D.A. v. R.C., the court remanded the parties to mediation to attempt to resolve issues regarding the child custody and parenting time arrangement with regard to their son because the Family Court failed to properly address the legal and factual issues of the case. The parties' son Jeremy was born in 1998. The parties, in 2002, executed a Consent Order for joint custody which specified that Jeremy would live with D.A. and enjoy liberal parenting time with R.C. In 2012, R.C. submitted a Motion to the court to alter the Consent Order to have Jeremy live with him because his relationship with D.A. had disintegrated. D.A. objected to the Motion arguing that the custodial arrangement was only intended to be temporary to allow her to graduate from the police academy. During three (3) hearings that were conducted on this issues the parties each presented completely opposing views with regard to their custody arrangement. D.A., the Plaintiff, argued that R.C., the Defendant's, home life was filled with domestic violence which endangered Jeremy and make R.C. unfit to be her son's residential parent. The Defendant argued that D.A.'s adversarial parenting style drove their son away from her so much that he did not want to live with her. The Appellate Division found that due to the level of informality with which the hearings were conducted the resolutions that were adjudicated with regard to the disputed issues were precluded. According to the record, the trial judge was not aware that due to the fact that Jeremy's parenting time and custody were genuine and substantial issues that were unresolved, he was obligated under Rule 5:8-1 to refer the case to mediation. Due to this oversight, the Appellate Division remanded the case to mediation so that the parties could attempt to resolve the issues that remained. Based upon the parties' history of antipathy towards each other and their prior unwillingness to attempt to reach a mutual compromise the Appellate Court directed that the Family Court closely oversee the mediation. Further, if mediation failed to resolve the parenting time and custody issues the Family Court judge was directed to conduct a hearing to solve the factual disputes and legal findings on the record as is required by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f) and N.J. Court Rule 1:7-4(a) by either interviewing Jeremy in camera or placing the reasons for not doing so on the record. Finally, the Family Court judge must consider the factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) to reach a decision because he previously failed to consider them. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, mediation, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Wife's Failure to Cooperate With Parenting Time Results In Transfer Of Custody To Father

In the recent Appellate Division case, I.O. v. M.C., the Defendant M.C. appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that transferred legal and residential custody of her son Mark, to his father, the Plaintiff, and temporarily restricted her parenting time to one hour of supervised parenting time a week because she failed to cooperate with prior Court Orders. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were never legally married. After dating the Plaintiff for a couple of years, the Defendant gave birth to Mark in 2003. The Plaintiff contends that from the moment of Mark's birth he and the Defendant have engaged in routine disagreements about his role in Mark's life. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant always believed that he should not participate in Mark's life and therefore she attempted to control every aspect of the child's life by herself. In 2005, the Plaintiff made an application to the court to determine custody and child support because the Defendant would not allow him any parenting time. Subsequently, the parties entered into a consent order that included a parenting time schedule and an agreement to attend family counseling. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant disregarded the agreement soon thereafter. Due to this, the Family Court appointed Marcy Pasternak, Psy.D. to be a parenting coordinator in the case. In 2006, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to enforce the parenting time order and require the Defendant to attend parenting sessions with Dr. Pasternak. Years of unsuccessful efforts by more than one Family Court judge to maintain residential custody with the Defendant while allowing the Plaintiff to successfully co-parent ensued. The Defendant signed many Consent Orders that directed that she would cooperate in co-parenting with the Plaintiff, but she failed to follow through with anything. In 2013, based upon an application by the Plaintiff, a Family Court judge found that the Plaintiff had proved a change in circumstances that were detrimental to Mark's best interests. The judge analyzed the applicable factors of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 in arriving at his decision to transfer custody to the Plaintiff. The current appeal followed. On appeal, the Defendant argued that the Family Court judge erred in transferring sole custody to the Plaintiff because he based his opinion on erroneous facts that she refused to co-parent. According to the Appellate Court, a party who seeks modification of a judgment or order regarding custody or visitation "must meet the burden of showing changed circumstances and that the agreement is [no longer] in the best interests of the child." Abouzahr v. Matera-Abouzahr, 361 N.J. Super. 135, 152 (App. Div. 2003). This issue of such a modification is two-fold and sequential. Faucett v. Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108, 127 (App. Div. 2009). The party who seeks modification of a custody arrangement must "first make a prima facie showing . . . that a genuine issue of fact exists bearing upon a critical question such as the best interests of the child . . . Once a prima facie showing is made, [the party] is entitled to a plenary hearing to resolve the disputed facts." Faucett, 411 N.J. Super. at 127. The trier of fact also must consider the factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court citing that the goal is to "assure [the Plaintiff] frequent and continuing contact with both parents." N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. Nevertheless, that goal can only be achieved if both parents understand that the other has a fundamental right to the care of their child and the Defendant has consistently ignored orders of the court that allow the Plaintiff access to the parties' child. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Parenting Time Agreement Upheld On Appeal

n a recent NJ Appellate Division case, S.L.R. v. M.J.P., the Plaintiff-wife appealed from a 2013 Court Order that, in part, required her to honor the parenting time arrangement with her Defendant-husband regarding the parties' two youngest children and denying her request that the court interview the two children and award the Plaintiff sole legal custody over them. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1989 and three children were born of their marriage. The parties decided to divorce in 2002 and their Final Judgment of Divorce incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA). The terms of the PSA specified that the parties would share joint legal custody of the children with the Plaintiff acting as the parent of primary custody. Further, the agreement designated that the Defendant would have parenting time with the children on alternating weekends and one overnight during the week. In 2013, the parties' eldest daughter, Katherine, began living with the Defendant. In March of that year, the Plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to the Defendant stating that the children have decided that they will no longer attend the Defendant's parenting time at which time the attorney advised the Defendant to consider the letter as notice that his youngest two children, Kali and Emily, would not be going to his home in the foreseeable future. The Defendant filed a Motion seeking an Order naming him the parent of primary residence for Katherine and compelling the Plaintiff to honor their parenting time agreement with respect to the younger children. The Family Court granted the Defendant's request to be named Katherine's parent of primary residence, granted his request that the parenting time arrangement as it was designed in the parties' PSA be followed, and denied the Plaintiff's request that the youngest children be interviewed regarding the matter. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court failed to make any findings of fact to justify its conclusion, including whether a changed circumstance warranted a modification to the parenting time arrangement when it denied the Plaintiff's request to interview the children who were seventeen and thirteen years old. R. 1:7-4(a); Rolnick v. Rolnick, 290 N.J. Super. 35, 42 (App. Div. 1996). Further, the Family Court did not acknowledge the existence of conflicting certifications, ignored the evidence the parties presented on the issue of parenting time, failed to make findings of fact, and reached its decision by shifting the burden to the Defendant to resolve the matter. In addition, the Family Court also failed to engage any meaningful review of the terms of the PSA which should have included a best interests evaluation. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(a); Palermo v. Palermo, 164 N.J. Super. 492 (App. Div. 1978). For all of these reasons, the Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Family Court to conduct a plenary hearing to decide the disputed issues of fact. Disputes over parenting time and child custody are among the most emotional and contested issues in family law. If you are involved in a child custody or parenting time dispute or if you are battling over provisions in your property settlement agreement it is of paramount importance that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about parenting time, custody & visitation, post-judgment modification, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Psychological Parents Awarded Custody Over Great Grandparent's Objection

In the recent child custody case involving grandparent's rights, E.B.S. v. K.M., the Defendant appealed from a judgment issued by the Family Court determining that the Plaintiff is the psychological parent of a 3 year old little girl and directing that the Plaintiff shall be the joint legal custodian of the little girl with the Plaintiff as the parent of primary residence and the Defendant the parent of alternate residence. The Defendant argues in his appeal that the ruling is against the evidence that was presented at trial. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling. The Defendant's sixteen year old daughter gave birth to Pamela, the child at issue in this case, in 2009. The child's natural father remains unknown. The Defendant was informed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services that unless she agreed to take custody of Pamela, it would start the process to remove the child from her granddaughter's custody and place the child in another home. The Defendant immediately travelled to Texas to take custody of Pamela and bring her to New Jersey. The Defendant's granddaughter, Pamela's mother, then executed a voluntary surrender of her parental rights and consented to the Defendant adopting Pamela. E.B.S. is the Plaintiff and is the daughter of the Defendant's long-time friend. E.B.S. and her husband had experienced great difficulty conceiving a child of their own, and the Defendant discussed the possibility that perhaps they could adopt Pamela. In fact, the Defendant brought Pamela to meet with the Plaintiffs nine days after retrieving her from Texas and encourage the possible adoption. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs spent a great deal of time with Pamela, bought her a crib, and even hired a nanny in anticipation of adopting her. The Defendant realized from the very beginning of the process that the Plaintiffs assumed that they would be adopting Pamela and were not just temporary caretakers. Pamela lived with the Plaintiffs for the majority of 2010 and most of 2011 and became part of their family. The Defendant suffered from many health issues during this time and was unable to care for Pamela alone. Soon the Plaintiffs realized that the Defendant, who was recovering, no longer wanted to help them adopt Pamela and therefore they brought an action in the Family Court seeking permanent custody of Pamela. During the trial, a doctor testified that Pamela had bonded with the Plaintiffs and the judge found the Plaintiffs to be the psychological parents of Pamela. The judge also noted that he was certain, based upon testimony, that during the time that Pamela was living with the Plaintiffs the Defendant encouraged the relationship between the child and the Plaintiffs. Further, it was determined that the Plaintiffs has assumed the "financial obligations of parenthood." Next, the judge found that the Plaintiff's satisfied the four-prong test for finding a third party to be a psychological parent that was established in V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (2000). Then, the judge applied the criteria for custody under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), and declared that the parties were joint custodians of Pamela, with the Plaintiffs being the parents of primary residence and the Defendant as the parent of alternate residence. The Defendant appealed from this decision. The Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court's finding that for child custody matters the "conclusions of a trial judge are entitled to great weight and will not be lightly disturbed on appeal." DeVita v. DeVita, 145 N.J. Super. 120, 123 (App. Div 1976). In its holding, the Appellate Court found that the Family Court judge's reasoning and decision were supported by credible evidence and should not be disturbed. Child custody cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for to establish custody or modify your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Custody To Father Allows Child To Stay In Same School

In a recent Essex County post-judgment custody modification case, Stevens v. Shah, the Plaintiff, Jennifer Stevens appealed from a 2012 Family Court order that directed the parties to share joint legal custody of their child and awarded temporary physical custody of the child to the father, Amir Shah, so that the child could continue to attend the same school he had been in prior to the divorce. In August of 2012, an Essex County Family Court Judge issued an order directing that the Family Division conduct a best interests investigation as to the parties' child to assist in determining custody. Later, the judge held a hearing and took the testimony of the parties. After reviewing the best interests analysis and considering the testimony, the judge issued the aforementioned order. In the order the judge indicated that temporary physical custody of the child shall remain with the Defendant, in part, so that the child could remain in the Union school system. The Plaintiff was granted very liberal parenting time with her child. The judge stated that his decision was based upon the fact that when the court applied the best interest factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) - most elements were equal except that the child's continuity of education would be better served by allowing him to continue to go to school in Union, New Jersey. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. The Appellate Division began its analysis by stating that a party wishing to modify a custody arrangement must demonstrate a "change in circumstances that affect the welfare of the child," according to the reasoning set forth in Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). After a showing of changed circumstances is made, the court must then decide whether the requested modification is within the best interests of the child. Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317 (1997). To accomplish this the court must consider the best interest factors as set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) and must make a record "referencing the statutory factors it has considered and the reasons for its custody determination." J.A. v. A.T., 404 N.J. Super. 132, 145 (App. Div. 2008). In the current case, the Appellate Court was satisfied that all of the above mentioned requirements were satisfied. Although, it held that because its decision was grounded in the child's best interest of continuity for the kindergarten year, and since all other factors were determined to be equal, the Plaintiff was permitted to seek physical custody without asserting changed circumstances after the school year. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment regarding such issues as child custody, alimony, or your child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, child custody, divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.