Psychological Parent Seeks Rights

In A.O. v. N.D., the court determined whether the plaintiff, designated the "psychological parent" of defendant's biological child was entitled to a plenary hearing with regard to an alleged agreement granting joint custody and ordering the parties to attend co-parenting therapy. The parties and the child lived together until the child was four. Plaintiff sought parenting time, custody and a designation as the child's psychological parent and the parties agreed in some regard. The parties agreed to designate an expert to produce a parenting schedule but there was continued conflict in regard to the parenting issue and plaintiff sought joint legal custody and mandatory co-parenting therapy. Defendant refused to sign a consent order giving effect to plaintiff's wishes. Plaintiff filed an application to enforce the unsigned consent order or for the court to order the same relief plaintiff sought in the consent order and defendant opposed. Defendant also acknowledged making his fiancee', not the plaintiff, the child's emergency contact. The judge denied the plaintiff's motion to enforce an unsigned consent order or grant a plenary hearing in light of the lack of evidence an agreement had been reached. The judge found no change in circumstances on which to grant plaintiff's relied but did order the parties to attend a co-parenting class. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the court erred in failing to order a plenary hearing to determine whether a verbal agreement had been reached. The NJ Appellate Division cited to numerous cases in rendering their judgment that the party seeking to enforce an agreement bears the burden of first showing some evidence of the existence of an agreement. The Appellate Division determined that, as per Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39 (1995), the agreement need not be reduced to writing to be enforceable. However, the Appellate Division also cited to the fact that an attorney's negotiations are not binding on a client unless the attorney has specific or apparent authority to enter into the settlement. U.S. Plywood Corp. v. Neidlinger, 41 N.J. 66 (1963). No matter the representations of defendant's counsel during negotiations, defendant's refusal to sign was evidence that an agreement did not exist. A designation as "pyschological parent" does not necessarily afford one the rights of a biological parent. Psychological parent is term used in many matters, from the case at hand to same-sex relationships where the non-biological parent failed to adopt to grandparents rights. If you are seeking, or trying to prevent, a designation of "psychological parent", it is critical that you obtain the advice of counsel. For more information about custody, parenting time, child support or other issues relative to children, visit DarlingFirm.com or call to schedule a consultation. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Case Contrasts Parent and Grandparent Rights in NJ

The NJ Superior Court Appellate Division case, Henry v. Zekovitch, contrasts and defines parent and grandparent visitation rights in this state. Linda Zerkovitch and Michael Henry got married in 2002. Two children were born of their marriage; one in 2003 and another in 2005. Linda filed for divorce in July of 2008 but her divorce was delayed because Michael was in active military service in another country and could not be served with the divorce complaint until February of 2010. Between 2008 and 2010, Linda and Michael's parents, the Henrys, began to experience strained relations. This strain compelled the Henrys to file a complaint seeking grandparent visitation rights. In December of 2010, the Family Court issued an order granting the Henrys with weekend visitation rights as well as overnight visitation with the children on alternating Wednesdays. On March 2, 2011, Linda and Michael finalized a consensual final judgment of divorce which was signed by both parties. The judgment specified that the parents would have joint custody of the children and that Linda was permitted to relocate to California with the children. The judgment also included that Michael and the Henrys were to have liberal visitation with the children throughout the year. Later on, the relationship between Linda and the Henrys began to break down and Linda denied them their visitation opportunities. In March of 2012, the Henrys filed an application seeking the enforcement of their visitation rights under the divorce judgment. The Appellate Court found that grandparent visitation is a statutorily created right and as such is not equal to the Constitutional rights that extend to a parent. Therefore, a grandparent can only be given visitation rights if it is within the best interests of the children and/or if the grandparents can be declared to be the "psychological parents" pursuant to the reasoning set forth in J.M.S. v. J.W. Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine the appropriate amount of visitation that should be awarded to the grandparents. If you anticipate that you will become involved in a dispute involving grandparent's visitation rights it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about grandparent's rights, child custody, parenting time, divorce or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.