L.K. AND M.K. VS. A.K.(FD-16-0875-12, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4056-15T2

Background

Grandparents L.K. and M.K. sought visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Statute (GVS) after the father (their son) died and the mother, A.K., curtailed contact.
Trial court (2013) found grandparents proved visitation was necessary to avoid harm to the children, relied on psychologist Dr. Dasher, and ordered supervised visits and a visitation coordinator; this was affirmed on appeal.
Subsequent enforcement efforts (court-ordered Skype and in‑person sessions) met strong resistance from the children, producing yelling, anxiety attacks, and apparent trauma during sessions.
The original judge found willful noncompliance by A.K. and entered remedial orders (communications, photos, therapy, supervised Skype/visits); enforcement continued while appeals proceeded.
A new Family Part judge, after reviewing updated evidence including a new psychological evaluation and the children’s adverse reactions to court‑ordered sessions, denied the grandparents’ motion to enforce prior visitation orders and terminated court‑ordered visitation to protect the children’s best interests.
Grandparents appealed, arguing (1) violation of law‑of‑the‑case/doctrine, (2) denial of due process, and (3) improper modification of previously affirmed orders; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge was bound by prior orders/mandates (law of the case) and therefore had to enforce visitation	Law-of-the-case required enforcement of the earlier visitation order affirmed on appeal	Later events and new evidence permitted reconsideration; court must act in children's current best interests	Judge could consider post‑decision developments; law‑of‑the‑case did not bar reconsideration given new evidence and changed circumstances
Whether denying enforcement of visitation deprived grandparents of due process	Repeated adjournments and transfer denied their right to enforce the prior judgment	They had process to present enforcement motion; court considered new evidence before ruling	No due process violation; court properly adjudicated enforcement motion on updated record
Whether compelled visitation or further psychological testing remained appropriate	Prior findings established visitation was necessary to avoid harm; enforcement should continue	Forced visitation and more testing were harming the children (observed anxiety, refusals)	Court found continued enforcement would cause harm; terminating court‑ordered visitation was in children’s best interests
Whether remedies such as sanctions, GAL, or incarceration were appropriate to enforce orders	Sought sanctions, counseling, GAL, community service, incarceration to compel compliance	Such remedies would not serve children’s best interests and could worsen harm or deplete resources	Trial court did not abuse discretion in rejecting punitive or intrusive enforcement measures

Key Cases Cited

Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (N.J. 2011) (describing law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its discretionary application)
State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187 (N.J. 1985) (law‑of‑the‑case as a nonbinding rule to prevent relitigation)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (deference to Family Part factual findings in custody/child welfare matters)
Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 2012) (a second judge should not differ from an earlier co‑equal ruling absent additional developments)
Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J. Super. 487 (App. Div. 1998) (same point regarding limitations on re‑litigation by a co‑equal court)