New Jersey Family Law

LIVINGSTON NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY VISITATION MEDIATION LAWYER

The trial judge's various parenting/visitation decisions are reversed. It was error to suspend the father's parenting time indefinitely and require him to attend therapy without a plenary hearing. Therefore, the matter is remanded for such a hearing at which both parties shall have the right to present all relevant evidence, both lay and expert, bearing upon the issue of defendant's relationship with his children. Although the judge found that defendant was putting pressure on his children in bad-mouthing his ex-wife, his rights should not be denied unless it is determined clearly and convincingly that this is one of those exceptional cases where visitation would cause physical or emotional harm to the children, or unless defendant were determined to be unfit.       Chantzis v. Chantzis, New Jersey App. Div., February 2, 2008

HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The mother appeals the decision of the New Jersey divorce judge who (1) eliminated the requirement that the father's parenting time be supervised; (2) vacated the prohibition on the father's driving the parties' daughter; and (3) revised the parenting time schedule without referring the parties to mediation. She also appeals the finding that defendant was not in violation of litigant's rights, but that the mother violated defendant's rights by interfering with his parenting time. The appellate panel affirms the elimination of the restrictions on defendant's parenting time, but remands for a statement of reasons on the issue of the mother's. Also, the trial court must state the reasons for not referring the parties to mediation before setting a visitation schedule.      Heller v. Heller, III, New Jersey App. Div., December 14, 2007

RIDGEWOOD NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey judgment of divorce conditioned the mother’s parenting time with parties’ children, who were in the physical custody of the father, on the children’s consent. But, according to the mother, she had not had parenting time with the children since the judgment was entered. Because the New Jersey divorce judge did not explain the decision to condition the mother’s parenting time on the children’s consent, and stated no reasons why that decision was in the best interests of the children, there could be no meaningful appellate review, and remand was required for reconsideration of the parenting-time issue and for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.     Parcel v. Parcel, New Jersey App. Div., May 28, 2007

SHORT HILLS DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The ex-husband moved to prohibit ex-wife's friend, Steven, from having any contact with the parties’ two daughters. She initially consented, but later moved unsuccessfully to discontinue the restraint. Because the restraint was based on nothing other than a disputed, vague and unsubstantiated allegation that Steven had allegedly spanked the girls, it is reversed. The judge was not free to accept the disputed allegation without hearing testimony or affording the right of cross-examination.     Miller v. Miller, New Jersey App. Div., October 16, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

After their New Jersey divorce, the father asked for unsupervised visitation with the parties’ 11-year-old son. This request was denied by the New Jersey divorce judge and is now affirmed. The New Jersey judgment of divorce granted sole custody to the mother and granted supervised visitation to the father based on his conviction for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl. Although he claimed the lack of problems with his visitation since his 1998 release from prison constituted changed circumstances, there was no basis to disturb the decision that unsupervised visitation was not in the son’s best interests in light of his special needs and the father’s conviction.   Frederick v. Frese, New Jersey App. Div., August 24, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION : SIBLING VISITATION

For 4 hours every other week, a 3-year-old girl in New Jersey's foster-care system visits her biological siblings who live in a different home. As long as the child remains in foster care, the visits will continue. But when she is adopted, the visits will stop. This practice of severing siblings' relationships - common in child-welfare agencies nationwide - is being challenged in New Jersey's Supreme Court. At issue is whether the state should allow the visits to continue after adoption and, if so, how to implement the changes in a way that respects the rights of adoptive parents to raise their children freely. The court decision is likely to affect hundreds of children statewide who are separated from their siblings in foster care. It could also affect whether people want to adopt in New Jersey.    Philadelphia Inquirer, April 6, 2006

NEW JERSEY CUSTODY

The mother attempted to gain custody of the parties' 3 children [all of whom have special needs in the form of autism and other developmental disabilities] stating that defendant was leaving the children with his mother, who was an alcoholic. Where the defense conceded the grandmother's alcoholism, and submitted no legally competent evidence concerning the allegedly improved status of the condition, the judge erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing based on his finding that, if the grandmother had an alcohol problem, the parties were aware of it when they agreed to the divorce settlement, and it did not constitute a change of circumstances.  Doran v. Doran, New Jersey App. Div. November 16, 2005

Sister & Brother

Ashley's dad wanted to establish visitation between her and her half-brother by the same mother. The boy lives in Pennsylvania with his adoptive parents, who object to the visitation request. Examining the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, adopted by both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the court finds that the only connection the boy has with New Jersey is that his half-sister lives here, which is not a "significant" connection. Accordingly, the court finds itself without jurisdiction and dismisses. In the Matter of Meng, ___N.J. Super. ___(Ch. Div. 2005); ____WL2005 ____, April 5, 2005

Parenting Time

When their daughter was 3, the parties entered into a Consent Order for visitation. The father wanted to expand the parenting time so that each parent would have approximately equal time with their daughter, who was now 11. Finding that (1) such an arrangement had, in fact, existed for the last 2 years and (2) the child had been thriving and enjoyed her frequent and regular time with each parent and (3) she felt no pressure from either parent in the shared-time relationship, the Court granted the father's application, after taking testimony from both parents and two mental health experts. Grimes-Doran v. Doran, New Jersey App. Div., March 11, 2005