A.J. v. R.J. (FM-20-0954-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
461 N.J. Super. 173
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; the marital settlement agreement named A.J. (plaintiff) as parent of primary residence and granted R.J. (defendant) regular parenting time.
- In March 2018 plaintiff unilaterally moved with the two children from Elizabeth to Mount Holly (about 62.3 miles from defendant); defendant learned days later and filed to block the relocation and modify custody.
- The trial court entered a July 16, 2018 order requiring plaintiff to return with the children to reside within a 15-mile radius of Union before the 2018–19 school year; parties were to follow an interim parenting-time schedule pending resolution.
- Plaintiff did not return (citing a lease and economic hardship); defendant sought enforcement, a transfer of residential custody, and termination of child support.
- On September 28, 2018 the trial judge sanctioned plaintiff by transferring custody to defendant, stating the move violated court orders and was contrary to the children’s best interests, but the judge did not make explicit N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 findings.
- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding the trial court applied the wrong relocation standard (used Baures/Schulze) and failed to conduct the N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best-interest analysis before transferring custody as a sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could transfer custody as a sanction without a best-interest hearing and statutory findings | A.J.: transfer occurred without a best-interest hearing or N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 findings; no prior warning custody would change | R.J.: court had authority under R.1:10-3 and R.5:3-7(a)(6) to sanction and transfer custody for violation | Court: transfer as a sanction is permitted but requires a separate best-interest adjudication and explicit N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 findings; reversal and remand required |
| Which legal standard governs intra-state relocation disputes (Baures factors vs. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4/Bisbing) | A.J.: trial court applied Baures/Schulze (arguably appropriate for intra-state move) | R.J.: relied on trial court’s application of Baures-based analysis to deny relocation | Court: Baures no longer controls; Bisbing/N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best-interest standard governs relocations, including intra-state moves previously decided under Schulze |
| Whether the July order’s imposition of a 15-mile residency restriction rewrote the MSA | A.J.: judge rewrote the MSA by imposing a 15-mile radius not in the agreement; arbitrary and capricious | R.J.: restriction was appropriate to preserve parenting time and children’s interests | Court: did not decide on merits because July order reversed for applying wrong law; if reimposed judge must explain findings |
| Whether case should be reassigned to a different trial judge on remand | A.J.: trial judge acted arbitrarily and capriciously, warranting reassignment | R.J.: no basis for reassignment; errors were legal, not indicative of bias | Court: declined reassignment; legal error alone does not require a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017) (overruled Baures and held relocation disputes governed by the N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best-interest standard)
- Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001) (prior relocation framework assessing custodial parent’s presumptive right to move)
- Schulze v. Morris, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2003) (applied Baures factors to intra-state relocations; relied on by trial court)
- Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) (burden and standards in applications to enforce custody orders)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard of review: deference to trial findings of fact; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 1997) (R.1:10-3 relief is coercive, not punitive; court may use sanctions to enforce orders)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (custody determinations must focus on N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best-interest factors)
- Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (1995) (recognizing the primary caretaker’s consequential role in custody decisions)