Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III (077533) (Sussex County and Statewide)
A-2-16
| N.J. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in April 2014; final judgment incorporated a March 2014 marital settlement agreement (MSA) granting Jaime primary residential custody and joint legal custody of twin daughters.
- MSA included an explicit non‑relocation clause: neither parent shall permanently relocate the children out of New Jersey without the other’s prior written consent; intrastate moves limited to 20 miles; mediation required if one moved more than 20 miles.
- Less than a year after the divorce Jaime became engaged to a Utah resident, informed Glenn she would marry and sought permission to relocate the children to Utah; Glenn refused.
- Jaime moved ex parte for permission to relocate without a plenary hearing; the Family Part granted relief contingent on mediation to set a parenting schedule and later entered a parenting plan using Jaime’s proposals; Jaime moved to Utah with the children shortly thereafter.
- Glenn appealed, arguing the court should have held a plenary hearing to determine (1) whether Jaime negotiated the MSA in bad faith to obtain a favorable relocation route and (2) whether the non‑relocation clause or changed circumstances/Baures analysis controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jaime) | Defendant's Argument (Glenn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could allow relocation without a plenary hearing | Jaime sought court approval and proposed parenting plan; mediation sufficient; no plenary hearing required | Glenn argued suspiciously prompt move after MSA and need for full hearing on bad faith and custody impact | Reversed: plenary hearing required to resolve factual disputes about bad faith and custody implications |
| Whether Jaime negotiated the MSA in bad faith to preserve a later Baures route | Jaime contends she negotiated in good faith and did not foresee remarriage/move | Glenn contends timing and circumstances suggest manipulation to avoid contesting removal under standard custody review | Court remanded: trial court must first determine at plenary hearing whether Jaime negotiated in bad faith; if proven, apply best‑interests standard |
| If no bad faith, does a substantial unanticipated change in circumstances exist to trigger Baures | Jaime must prove a substantial, unanticipated change (e.g., remarriage) and good‑faith reason for move under Baures | Glenn relies on the explicit non‑relocation clause and argues anticipated remarriage does not excuse the contractual restriction | If no bad faith, trial court must decide whether Jaime proved substantial unanticipated change; if so, apply Baures; if not, apply best‑interests analysis honoring the non‑relocation term |
| Effect of non‑relocation clause on relocation analysis | Jaime asserts her Baures rights and need to relocate for remarriage/family reasons | Glenn asserts Jaime bargained away the preference to relocate and the clause should be enforced or require heavier proof to overcome | Court held the non‑relocation provision is enforceable; it limits the preferential treatment normally afforded primary custodial parent and must be considered in the changed‑circumstances/Baures/best‑interests analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discusses deference to family court factfinding)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42 (policy preserving noncustodial parent relationship; custodial parent's freedom balanced with child welfare)
- Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (establishes two‑part test for relocation: good faith reason and not inimical to child's interests; lists factors)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 205 N.J. 50 (modern view on relocation; custodial parent's right to pursue better opportunities)
- Shea v. Shea, 384 N.J. Super. 266 (Ch. Div.) (plenary hearing required where removal shortly follows settlement and facts bearing on removal were known at time of settlement)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (changed‑circumstances doctrine for modifying matrimonial agreements)