H.S. VS. D.S. (FM-12-1381-13, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0715-16T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Parties: Dawn (defendant-appellant) and Hal (plaintiff-respondent) divorced; they share a child born in 2008. An amended judgment of divorce (AJOD) set custody and parenting time.
- Post-divorce events: Hal moved to California; Dawn remained in New Jersey and remarried in 2015. Hal’s motion terminated alimony; Dawn obtained a child-support modification in Sept. 2015.
- Enforcement motion: In 2016 Dawn filed to enforce litigant’s rights for Hal’s alleged noncompliance (failure to provide required life-insurance proof and timely payment of work‑related childcare) and sought attorneys’ fees.
- Hal cross‑moved for expanded parenting time (including extra summer week and Skype) and for psychological evaluations of the parents, child, and Dawn’s new husband.
- Trial court order (Sept. 19, 2016): denied Dawn’s enforcement and fee requests; compelled Dawn to initially pay 100% of work‑related childcare and seek reimbursement; ordered psychological evaluations; granted Hal additional parenting/Skype time. The judge issued no detailed findings or plenary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dawn) | Defendant's Argument (Hal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge complied with Rule 1:7‑4(a) requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law | Judge failed to make required written/oral findings supporting denial of enforcement, fee denial, childcare allocation, evaluation order, and parenting change | Findings unnecessary because remedies and factual determinations were straightforward or remedied by Hal’s alternate insurance and other considerations | Reversed and remanded: judge failed to make required findings; remand for full findings and, if needed, plenary hearing |
| Whether a plenary hearing was required before ordering psychological evaluations and resolving disputed factual claims about child's welfare | Dawn argued disputes of fact/credibility required a plenary hearing before ordering evaluations | Hal argued evaluations and changes were appropriate without plenary hearing | Court held a plenary hearing is required when issues hinge on credibility and contested facts; remanded for hearing if necessary |
| Whether court properly altered allocation of work‑related childcare costs without parties’ request or findings | Dawn argued judge’s order to have her pay 100% (then seek reimbursement) conflicted with prior AJOD and was unduly burdensome given income disparity | Hal argued disputed necessity/legitimacy of expenses justified court action | Court found judge made no findings resolving disputes or addressing financial disparity; remanded to develop record and make findings |
| Whether the court adequately supported modification of parenting time (extra summer week) | Dawn argued no showing of changed circumstances or best interests to justify modifying mediated agreement | Hal requested additional week as appropriate | Court noted judge acknowledged standards (changed circumstances, best interests) but made no factual findings to support modification; remanded |
| Whether the court sufficiently considered statutory/factor analysis before denying attorneys' fees | Dawn argued judge failed to analyze Williams factors and parties' relative ability to pay | Hal opposed fees | Court held judge did not make requisite findings under Williams and related rules; remand for findings on fee factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Health v. Roselle, 34 N.J. 331 (1961) (litigants may seek relief to enforce what is due under a court order)
- Dunne v. Dunne, 209 N.J. Super. 559 (App. Div. 1986) (plenary hearing required when issues depend on factual determinations and credibility)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (custody modification standard; changed circumstances required)
- Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996) (trial judges must make findings of fact and state reasons)
- Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2008) (meaningful appellate review requires reasoned findings)
- Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1990) (need for reasons to permit appellate review)
- Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (naked conclusions insufficient; findings required)
- Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229 (1971) (factors for awarding counsel fees in family actions)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 262 N.J. Super. 303 (Ch. Div. 1992) (awarding fees to equalize litigation between spouses of unequal means)
- Anzalone v. Anzalone Bros., Inc., 185 N.J. Super. 481 (App. Div. 1982) (discussing fee awards and financial disparity)