BRYAN ALINTOFF VS. RACHEL B. ALINTOFFÂ (FM-13-545-12, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0785-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 18, 2017Background
- Divorce between Bryan and Rachel Alintoff; son Matt (born 2009) removed to Brooklyn by Rachel in 2011; litigation followed and a September 2011 consent order initially provided joint legal and shared physical custody.
- Trial in Family Part (28 days) focused on custody; plenary equitable-distribution/alimony matters stayed due to Rachel’s 2012 bankruptcy filing.
- Multiple evaluations produced differing views of Matt’s needs (ASD vs. frontal-lobe/executive-function concerns); joint consultant Dr. Bluvstein suggested neurological testing; Dr. Baszczuk (court-appointed custody evaluator) recommended primary residential custody to Bryan and therapies for both parents.
- Judge Grasso Jones found Bryan more likely to coparent and cooperate, and Rachel prone to unilateral decisions and retaliatory behavior (e.g., withholding parenting time, enrolling Matt in NY programs without notice).
- Court awarded Bryan primary residential custody, Rachel alternating/extended parenting time, ordered therapy and parenting coordination, and required Rachel to submit to neuropsych testing.
- On limited remand the court terminated Bryan’s unallocated pendente lite support and imputed income of $70,000 to Rachel (finding voluntary underemployment), set child support at $124/week, and denied Rachel’s recusal motion. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding Bryan primary residential custody | Bryan: custody award is supported by evaluator reports and factual findings that he is more cooperative and better able to coparent | Rachel: court misweighed evidence, should credit her experts and prior actions as protective and in child's best interest | Affirmed — trial court credited Dr. Baszczuk and factual findings; substantial credible evidence supports custody determination. |
| Admissibility of treating/undisclosed expert reports and certain evaluation evidence | Bryan: exclusion appropriate where reports were not litigation experts/disclosed or prepared for litigation | Rachel: Kinsella requires flexibility to admit treating professionals’ reports; exclusion prejudiced her case | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; Kinsella favors independent/litigation experts and excluded materials were not outcome-determinative. |
| Imputation of Rachel’s income and child support award during bankruptcy stay | Bryan: court may set pendente lite child support; Rachel is voluntarily underemployed and income may be imputed | Rachel: imputed $70,000 is excessive; bankruptcy stay barred support order | Affirmed — bankruptcy automatic stay did not bar child-support adjudication; imputation within trial court discretion based on Rachel’s education/work history and NYC wage data. |
| Recusal motion based on Rachel’s federal suit against the judge | Bryan: recusal was baseless and strategically filed to delay proceedings | Rachel: lawsuit against judge required disqualification | Affirmed — record insufficient and no objective basis for reasonable doubt about impartiality; motion properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276 (N.J. 1997) (best-interests standard and role of independent/litigation experts in custody evaluations)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (deference to Family Part factfinding and credibility assessments)
- MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240 (N.J. 2007) (appellate deference in credibility-driven family cases)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (standard for upsetting trial court findings)
- Abouzahr v. Matera-Abouzahr, 361 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 2003) (application of Rova Farms standard in family cases)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (best-interests analysis guided by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 factors)
- Fox v. Twp. of W. Milford, 357 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 2003) (trial court discretion in weighing expert testimony)
- Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496 (N.J. 1990) (standard of review for support and financial determinations)
- Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J. Super. 8 (App. Div. 1995) (pendente lite support based on limited record)
- Sternesky v. Salcie-Sternesky, 396 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 2007) (imputation of income left to trial court discretion)
- Clark v. Pomponio, 397 N.J. Super. 630 (App. Div. 2008) (effects of bankruptcy on family-support proceedings)
- Heisler, 422 N.J. Super. 399 (App. Div. 2011) (sanctioning/excluding evidence not properly disclosed)
- Dalal, 221 N.J. 601 (N.J. 2015) (recusal standard: objective test for reasonable doubt about impartiality)