Party Chose to Ask Forgiveness Rather Than Permission to Relocate

In A.J. v. R.J., custody of the parties’ children was transferred to defendant upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior order concerning plaintiff’s relocation with the children. The parties married in 2008, and divorced in 2013. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties divorced with a negotiated marital settlement agreement, rather than a trial, with defendant receiving parenting time every other weekend and one weeknight overnight. Plaintiff was a tenured teacher in Elizabeth and Defendant resided in Union. Post-judgment, Plaintiff remarried and had another child. Due to Plaintiff’s family growing, they moved to Mount Holly. Plaintiff failed to obtain permission, from the Defendant or the court, to move the children after the Defendant notified her that he did not wish for the children to live so far away. Upon learning of the move, the Defendant filed an order to show cause to modify the judgment as to custody and to prevent the Plaintiff’s relocation. The trial judge granted the Defendant parenting time three weekends each month. Thereafter, a plenary hearing occurred and the trial judge ordered Plaintiff to relocate within fifteen miles of Union prior to the beginning of the upcoming school year. In making his decision regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to relocate with the children, the trial judge relied upon the factors set forth in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judge applied the wrong standard in his determination of her ability to relocate and that he changed the terms of the partied MSA by including a fifteen-mile rule where the parties had none. With regard to the imposition of the fifteen-mile limitation, pursuant to Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (app. Div. 1997), Rule 5:3-7 and Rule 1:10-3, the court may craft remedies or measures to facilitate enforcement in the event an order is violated. As to the Judge’s use of the Baures factors, Baures no longer applies when a court is addressing relocation; rather, the court must consider N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. As the motion judge did not apply the correct measure in sanctioning the plaintiff, the appellate division reversed and remanded. If you are planning to relocate and believe that it may affect your parenting time arrangement, or you are seeking to prevent your children's other parent from relocating, it is critical that you seek an experienced family law attorney to represent you as misapplication of law can cause disastrous results for you and your children. For more information about relocating with children, divorce, alimony, child support or other family matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. To schedule a consultation with an experienced family law attorney now, call 973-584-6200. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.

In Child Relocation Case, Appeal Is Only Possible After An Adjudication

In the recent post-judgment matrimonial case, Russitano v. Russitano, John Russitano appealed from a 2012 Court Order that directed action based upon his ex-wife's Motion to relocate the parties' children to Alabama and recalculate his child support obligation. The Appellate Court could not rule on appeal because the Family Court Order did not issue a final disposition on issues involved with the case. The parties in this case were married in 2000 and three (3) children were born of the marriage. On June 27, 2011, they were divorced pursuant to a Final Judgment of Divorce with their own negotiated Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated. In 2012, the Defendant, Melissa Russitano, filed a Motion with the court to relocate with the children to Alabama and to modify the parties' PSA to increase John's child support obligation. John filed a cross-motion seeking a recalculation of his child support obligation and to enforce the parenting time provisions contained in the PSA. After hearing oral argument, the Family Court judge issued an order directing that the parties engage mediation to attempt to resolve the relocation issues and the custody and parenting time issues. The judge also ordered that John's child support obligation be re-evaluated based upon his three most recent pay stubs. John appealed from this Order. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that, although John disagrees with his ex-wife's request to relocate to Alabama with their children, he failed to challenge the lower court's order referring the parties to mediation or the determination to hold a plenary hearing on the removal of the children if the parties are unable to reach a decision. The Appellate Court concluded that the Family Court judge's order on this issue was not a final disposition of the issue at the time that the appeal was filed because the court had never ruled on Melissa's Motion requesting permission to relocate with the parties' children. As such, a party is required to seek leave to appeal according to Rule 2:5-6(a), and neither party did so. As required under Rule 2:2-3(a)(1), the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from "final judgments of the Superior Court trial divisions." In all other cases, jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory matter is only granted upon leave of the court. Rule. 2:2-4. Therefore, this claim was dismissed. Next, regarding the child support issue, the Family Court is given substantial discretion to determine child support awards and other support obligations based upon the ruling in Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super., 312, 315 (App. Div. 2001). In this case, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the ruling of the Family Court as there was no basis to do so as the lower court's decision to order a recalculation of the obligation was appropriate. Disputes regarding child relocation and child support can be of the most important in family law because of the substantial impact that decisions regarding these issues will have upon the lives of the parties and their children. If you are involved in a child relocation or child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on child relocation, child support, post judgment modification, divorce, 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.

Gay NJ Man May Relocate to Gay Unfriendly State With Adopted Child Against Other Parent's Objections

In the recent case of A.G. v. R.R, (BER-FM-02-2258-09) the Bergen County Court ruled that a parent of primary residence with good intentions cannot be barred from relocating with the child to a state hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) marriage without a showing of prejudice to the rights of the other parent. In A.G. v. R.R., the child was adopted while the parties were living in New Jersey, although they never entered into a civil union or domestic partnership. Upon separation, the parties entered into an agreement affording primary custody to A.G. and permitted him to relocate with the child from New Jersey to New York so that A.G. could pursue lucrative job opportunities. Following an injury rendering A.G. unable to perform the theater jobs for which he was well paid in New York, he received a lucrative job offer from an Atlanta, Georgia television production company and filed a Motion in the New Jersey Superior Court, Family Part, to relocate the child to Atlanta. R.R. opposed the Motion on the grounds that a 2004 amendment to the Georgia Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage and recognition of marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states. Judge Thurber held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution would require Georgia to uphold custody and parenting time orders issued by the New Jersey Courts. Judge Thurber rationalized that, if Georgia is hostile to the parental rights of R.R., he has a judicial remedy in the New Jersey Courts which have an interest in seeing their orders upheld. The Judge was careful to note that there was no example of a Georgia court refusing to recognize the rights of out-of-state adoptive parents. If you or your former partner are seeking to relocate a child against the wishes of the other parent, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on adoption, child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, dissolution of a civil union, domestic partnership or marriage, modifications, alimony, palimony or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.