Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Intra-State Relocation by a Divorced Parent, and Contempt for Unauthorized Moves

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Oct 8, 2019 in Appellate Division, Chancery issues, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Standards of review | 0 comments

A.J. v. R.J., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). This opinion by Judge Mawla involved a primary custodial parent (plaintiff) who, due to a rent increase at her Elizabeth residence, moved over 60 miles away to Mount Holly. Her ex-husband (defendant) complained that that move, made without real notice to him, violated the parties’ marital settlement agreement and interfered with his parenting time, since he lived in Union, near where his ex-wife had resided. When plaintiff did not move back to the Elizabeth area despite a court order to do so, defendant got an order from the Family Part changing custody to himself as a sanction for plaintiff’s non-compliance. The basis for that sanction was Rules 1:10-3 and 5:3-7(a)(6).

Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division, applying de novo review, reversed, for two reasons. First, Judge Mawla held, “Rule 5:3-7(a)(6) requires a separate adjudication, which considers the children’s best interests and findings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, before the sanction is ordered.” That did not occur here.

Judge Mawla went on to explain that “[i]n the context of a transfer of child custody as a sanction, affording both parents the ability to address whether a transfer of custody is in the best interests of the children and requiring the court to make the necessary statutory findings provides the necessary process and a reviewable record. Therefore, a best-interest hearing and findings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 is required where a court transfers custody as a sanction.” He rejected, however, plaintiff’s argument that the Family Part was obligated to “select a less severe sanction before it can order a modification of custody.”

The second reason for reversal was that the Family Part used the wrong legal standard in evaluating plaintiff’s intra-state move. That court had relied on Schulze v. Morris, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2003), in this respect. But Schulze applied the factors of Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), and Judge Mawla observed that the Baures factors “no longer apply when a court is addressing an intra-state relocation, and instead, pursuant to Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017) [discussed here], the court must apply N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.” (The Family Part had in fact recognized that Bisbing had overtaken Baures but still relied on Schulze.)

Bisbing had held that N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, which embodies a “best interests of the child” standard, must be applied to interstate relocations. For the same reasons explained in Bisbing, Judge Mawla concluded, the Baures factors should not apply to intrastate moves either, contrary to Schulze. Accordingly, the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress