Anthony C. Major v. Julie Maguire(074345)
128 A.3d 675
| N.J. | 2016Background
- Grandparents Anthony and Suzanne Major filed under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 seeking visitation with their granddaughter after the death of their son in February 2013; they alleged a longstanding close caregiving relationship and that access had been sharply curtailed afterward.
- Defendant (the child’s mother, Maguire) allowed only two short visits in four months following the son’s death and opposed court-ordered visitation.
- At an initial Family Part hearing the trial court permitted plaintiffs to supplement their form complaint with testimony but denied expert evidence, found no particularized prima facie harm, and dismissed the complaint as premature for lack of a final denial of visitation.
- The Appellate Division reversed, citing its decision in R.K. v. D.L., and remanded for case-management consistent with that panel’s recommendations.
- The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that plaintiffs’ detailed allegations of a close relationship plus the parent’s death sufficed at the pleading stage to make a prima facie showing of harm under Moriarty, and set guidance on when complex case management, discovery, and experts are appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents established a prima facie showing of harm at the pleading stage to survive a motion to dismiss | Major: detailed allegations of sustained caregiving and a close bond, and that the father’s death traumatized the child — this suffices at pleadings to infer harm | Maguire: grandparents failed to plead particularized, identifiable harm and thus complaint should be dismissed | Court: plaintiffs’ allegations (close relationship, caregiving, parent’s death, subsequent curtailment) permit every reasonable inference of harm at pleading stage; dismissal was error |
| Proper procedure for case management and discovery in grandparent-visitation actions | Major: R.K.-style case management and tailored discovery may be needed; plaintiffs should be allowed to plead fully and seek complex-track designation | Maguire: R.K. is burdensome; discovery/case-management should not undermine parental autonomy; threshold prima facie harm must be found before intrusive procedures | Court: adopt a fact-sensitive approach — use Rule 5:5-7(c) complex-track procedures when warranted; non-complex matters may proceed as summary actions; pleadings should inform complexity decision |
| Whether grandparents must wait until visitation has been denied with finality before filing suit | Major: no final denial required; filing earlier is permissible to prevent harm | Maguire: litigation should be premature absent a final, definitive denial or substantial efforts to resolve visitation | Court: no requirement of final denial; filing before final denial is allowed and dismissal as premature was improper |
| Whether trial court properly refused expert evidence and dismissed without permitting further proceedings | Major: experts may be necessary and courts should allow appropriate discovery/expert proof when complexity and need are shown | Maguire: threshold harm must be established first; trial court properly limited intrusion | Court: trial court should have denied the dismissal motion and allowed plaintiffs opportunity to prove harm; expert evidence and discovery may be allowed when tailored and justified, with protections for privacy and resources |
Key Cases Cited
- Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (N.J. 2003) (imposes ‘‘threshold harm’’ burden on grandparents and applies strict scrutiny to statute)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes parental due‑process right and presumption that fit parents act in child’s best interests)
- R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113 (App. Div. 2014) (procedural case‑management recommendations for grandparent‑visitation cases)
- Wilde v. Wilde, 341 N.J. Super. 381 (App. Div. 2001) (cautions against intrusive remedies without a showing justifying them)