Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III (077533) (Sussex County and Statewide), A-2-16

Background

Jaime Taormina Bisbing (mother) and Glenn Bisbing (father) divorced; their Marital Settlement Agreement (incorporated into the divorce judgment) awarded joint legal custody with mother as parent of primary residence and contained a clause prohibiting permanent out-of-state relocation without the other parent’s written consent.
Months after the divorce the mother married a Utah resident and sought to permanently relocate the parties’ twin daughters to Utah; father objected and mother filed under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 for court authorization.
The trial court, applying this Court’s Baures v. Lewis standard for a parent of primary residence, found the mother acted in good faith and that the move would not be inimical to the children’s interests, and authorized relocation.
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing, finding a factual dispute over whether the mother negotiated custody in bad faith and holding that a parent shown to have negotiated in bad faith must meet a best-interests standard rather than the Baures test.
The Supreme Court granted certification and held that Baures’ two-part test (good faith + not inimical) should be replaced: in all contested interstate relocation disputes where parents share legal custody, “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 is determined by a best-interests-of-the-child analysis; remanded for plenary hearing applying that standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Correct standard to establish “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 for contested interstate relocation when parents share legal custody	Baures applies to custodial parent: need only show good faith and that move is not inimical	Enforce Agreement and apply best-interests standard; parties’ agreement bars unilateral relocation	Court: Replace Baures; apply best-interests analysis in all contested relocation disputes where parents share legal custody
Effect of alleged bad-faith negotiation of custody designation on relocation standard	Alleged prior relationship and conduct should not change Baures applicability	Bad-faith designation should shift burden to best-interests review	Court: Whether mother negotiated in bad faith is irrelevant to which standard applies; best-interests governs regardless
Whether settlement agreement precludes judicial review or requires changed-circumstances showing	Mother: Agreement doesn’t waive right to judicial determination under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2	Father: Agreement’s relocation clause should be enforced; mother waived right to relocate	Court: Agreement matters; because it was incorporated, mother must show changed circumstances to modify it, and still must show “cause” (now via best-interests analysis)
Constitutional challenge: does N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 infringe mother’s right to interstate travel?	Mother argued Appellate Division approach impinged travel rights	Father relied on statute and children’s/both-parents’ interests	Court: No constitutional violation — statute regulates relocation of children (not travel) to protect child’s and nonmoving parent’s interests

Key Cases Cited

Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (N.J. 2001) (previous two-part test for custodial-parent relocation: good faith and not inimical to child)
Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42 (N.J. 1985) (custodial parent must show advantage to move and that move is not inimical to children)
Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 344 (N.J. 1988) (good-faith reason plus no adverse effect on visitation as showing of cause)
Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197 (N.J. 2013) (abandoning presumptive deference to custodial parent; best-interests analysis with parents on equal footing)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980) (settlement-embedded custody/support terms may be modified only upon changed circumstances)