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.

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.

Extended Parenting Time, Child Custody And Name Change Award Appealed

In Ferriola v. Chiarulli, the Defendant appealed from a Family Court Order that expanded the Plaintiff's parenting time and restored the parties' child's name to that appearing on her birth certificate. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties in this case share a four (4) year old girl. They were never married and they do not get along with each other. During their lives, both have battled addictions to drugs or alcohol and their daughter tested positive for drugs when she was born in 2010. As a result, she suffered severe and lasting withdrawal symptoms which caused there to be a finding of abuse and neglect against the parents. In 2011, the Defendant was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the girl and the Plaintiff was allowed only weekly supervised visitation while she underwent drug treatment. The Plaintiff completed court ordered parenting classes and began drug treatment as recommended by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) in 2011. After completing a one (1) year drug treatment program the Plaintiff was awarded ten (10) hours a week of unsupervised parenting time with her child with the plan to re-evaluate parenting time in the future. Six months later the judge found that the Plaintiff's parenting time visits were successful and she was still sober, therefore she expanded her parenting time to include overnight visits. The judge also granted the Plaintiff's request to change the child's name to add her last name as an additional middle name to allow the child to carry the Plaintiff's family name without hyphenating her surname. The Defendant appealed arguing that the court should not have expanded the Plaintiff's overnight parenting time or changed the child's name without a plenary hearing. The Appellate Court held that the Defendant's arguments were without merit pursuant to Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The Appellate Court believed that the Family Court judge, who had overseen the case for over three (3) years carefully explained her reasons for all of the relief that the Plaintiff was awarded. Most importantly, the judge based all of her decisions on the child's best interests. Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 111-12 (App. Div 2007). Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law as are the often included issues including changing a child's name. If you feel that it may be beneficial to you to submit an application to the court to change your child's name or modify your current child custody or parenting time arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney. For more information about name change, child custody, parenting time, non dissolution cases, divorce 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.

No Custody Change Absent Changed Circumstances

In B.T. v. T.T., a case that was appealed from Union County, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied her application to gain custody of the parties' daughter. The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the Order pertaining to the custody issue. According to the Appellate Division, a party "seeking to modify custody must demonstrate changed circumstances that affect the welfare of the children." Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007); Borys v. Boyrs, 76 N.J. 103, 115-16 (1978). A party seeking such a modification bears the burden of proof. Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453, 500 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 192 N.J. 73 (2007). In the case on appeal, the parties' daughter was born in January of 2006 and was removed from the Defendant's custody in 2011 following an armed home invasion of the apartment that she shared with her boyfriend. The child began living with the Plaintiff, her father, in Pennsylvania at the time. In March of 2011, the Family Court issued an Order continuing the Plaintiff's temporary custody of the child. In 2012, the court held a two-day hearing regarding the custody of the parties' child on the application of the Defendant to regain custody. The court subsequently denied the Defendant's Motion and continued the custody of the child with the Plaintiff and gave the Defendant visitation on alternate weekends. In 2012, the Defendant made allegations that the Plaintiff was not properly attending to the child's medical and dental needs, allegations that the Plaintiff refuted. In 2013, a Family Court judge noted that he was in receipt of a report from the DCP&P that investigated the allegations against the Plaintiff and found all to be unfounded. The report also indicated that the Defendant's allegations against the Plaintiff date back to 2007 and all "have been deemed repetitive and . . . unfounded." The Family Court judge carefully reviewed the entire record and found no evidence to support the Defendant's different allegations against the Plaintiff and also finding that she failed "to make a showing of substantial change in circumstances." Therefore, denying her request for a change in custody. For the same reasoning, the Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision to deny the Defendant's request. 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.

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.