Johnson v. Johnson
204 N.J. 529
| N.J. | 2010Background
- David Johnson and Molly Johnson divorced in 2005; they share two children, Amelia and Elsie, with Johnson as the residential custodial parent.
- In 2005 the final divorce judgment incorporated a property settlement and a detailed informal parenting schedule; disputes over time sharing followed.
- The parties elected APDRA arbitration to resolve ongoing parenting-time issues, appointing Dr. Mark White as arbitrator; the agreement limited transcript presence and provided for a written findings-based award.
- The arbitrator conducted multiple interviews, observed both homes, reviewed school records, and issued a detailed April 2008 award with a reconsideration opinion.
- Ms. Johnson sought reconsideration; the arbitrator issued an eleven-point reaffirmation emphasizing cooperation and setting a revised schedule, with referrals for neuropsychological evaluation and counseling.
- The trial court confirmed the award; the Appellate Division remanded for plenary review due to Fawzy’s transcript requirements; this Court reversed and reinstated the trial court’s confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Fawzy to APDRA | Johnson contends Fawzy applies to APDRA arbitrations as well. | Johnson argues Fawzy is limited to the Arbitration Act context. | Fawzy applies to APDRA arbitrations. |
| Necessity of verbatim transcript | Without verbatim transcript, review is impossible. | A detailed arbitrator record suffices for review. | A complete, detailed record suffices; verbatim transcript not required. |
| Harm to child standard adequacy | Claim of harm exists given parental conflicts and scheduling changes. | No prima facie harm shown; dispute about parenting style, not harm. | No harm established; trigger for plenary review not met. |
| Record sufficiency across arbitration acts | APDRA's procedures must meet Fawzy’s harm-review safeguards. | APDRA procedures, with a robust record, suffice for review. | Record adequate to permit judicial review under APDRA. |
| Final disposition of the award | If harmed, the court should overturn the award for best interests. | Absent harm, respect for the parents' arbitration choice remains. | Judgment reversed; APDRA award reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (N.J. 2009) (established harm review and record requirements for child-custody arbitration)
- Faherty v. Faherty, 97 N.J. 99 (N.J. 1984) (pre-arbitration framework recognizing limits on arbitration of custody)
- Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (N.J. 2003) (interference with parental autonomy allowed to prevent harm to child)
- V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (N.J. 2000) (parental autonomy and state interest in child welfare)
- Henry v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320 (N.J. 2010) (temporary assignment constitutional discussion; related concurrence cited)
- Pinto v. Spectrum Chems. & Lab. Prods., 200 N.J. 580 (N.J. 2010) (stare decisis considerations in constitutional context)