D.G., N/K/A D.H. VS. R.G. (FM-11408-13, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-2542-14T1/A-1188-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- D.H. (plaintiff) and R.G. (defendant) divorced in July 2013; settlement provided joint legal custody, plaintiff primary residential custody, and specified cost-sharing for unreimbursed medical expenses (defendant 53%, plaintiff 47%).
- A school guidance counselor recommended therapy for one child; defendant sought court assistance after parties could not agree on a therapist and moved to compel cooperation and payment.
- After repeated attempts and a guardian ad litem (GAL) report recommending therapy and mediation, a December 10, 2014 court conference ended without agreement when plaintiff left the courthouse; the judge appointed defendant’s proposed out-of-network Ph.D. psychologist, ordered defendant to pay the full bill and reduced defendant’s child support by the plaintiff’s share of unreimbursed medical costs.
- Plaintiff challenged that order and, separately, filed an omnibus motion (December 2014) raising many relief requests; after delay and additional proceedings the judge issued an August 27, 2015 order resolving 51 items (including temporarily changing custody of one child) with very brief explanations.
- Plaintiff sought reconsideration; the judge denied it, explaining (at oral argument) that rationale had been shared in a prior telephone conference with counsel (not recorded or transcribed). Plaintiff appealed both the December 10, 2014 and August 27, 2015 orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in appointing the therapist and ordering defendant to pay the bill (Dec. 10, 2014) | D.H. argued she should have been allowed to present evidence of her financial hardship and alternative in‑network providers before the court appointed a therapist | R.G. argued the children needed therapy, the parties had long failed to agree, and the court properly exercised discretion to appoint a therapist and assign payment | Affirmed. No plenary hearing required because there was no genuine, substantial factual dispute about the need for therapy; the court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the therapist and assigning payment consistent with the parties’ agreement |
| Whether the August 27, 2015 omnibus order is reviewable without fuller findings of fact and law | D.H. argued she had no meaningful opportunity to present or contest the facts and that the order lacks factual and legal findings | R.G. relied on the trial court’s exercise of discretion resolving many reliefs and the court’s statement that rationale had been shared previously with counsel | Reversed in part (remanded). The August 27 order lacked the required findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 1:7-4; remand ordered for the trial judge to provide a proper statement of reasons |
| Whether changing temporary custody of one child required a plenary hearing | D.H. argued the custody change occurred without a hearing and without findings showing changed circumstances | R.G. maintained the change was warranted and temporary | Remanded. The record lacks findings showing whether a plenary hearing was required or whether defendant made the prima facie showing to dispense with one; trial court must address custody on remand and hold a plenary hearing if necessary |
| Whether appellate review should defer to Family Part factual findings and whether legal conclusions receive deference | D.H. asserted errors in the court’s exercise of discretion absent findings; parties relied on settled standards | R.G. relied on court’s family expertise and discretion | Court reiterated appellate deference to Family Part fact-finding when supported by evidence, but emphasized legal interpretations receive no special deference and that written or oral findings are required for meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (trial court findings binding when supported by substantial credible evidence; deference to family court fact-finding)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (standard on binding nature of trial court findings)
- Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276 (N.J. 1997) (best interests of the child as primary custody consideration)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (plenary hearing required when genuine and substantial factual dispute exists; changed‑circumstances standard for custody modification)
- Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (N.J. 1995) (legal interpretations are reviewed de novo; no special deference)
- Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 2015) (remand required when trial court fails to provide factual findings and conclusions of law)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 158 N.J. Super. 285 (App. Div. 1978) (trial judge must make specific findings on the record to inform appellate review)