M.A. VS. A.A. (FM-01-0537-18, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1493-20

Background

Parents divorced; Marital Settlement Agreement awarded joint legal and physical custody of daughter (Adele, b. 2013) and stated the child's best interests are paramount; the MSA did not address vaccinations.
In 2015 and 2018 the parents submitted written “religious exemption” letters to schools claiming objection to vaccines; language was later shown to have been drafted by a third party.
In April–May 2019 Adele received hospital-administered DTaP after stepping on a nail and later MMR/DTaP vaccinations that father authorized without mother’s consent; Adele developed a transient rash and had prior 2017 ITP (resolved).
Mother moved to enjoin further vaccinations and sought sole custody on medical and religious grounds; father cross-moved for sole authority over immunizations. The parties presented competing medical experts at a three-day plenary hearing.
The Family Part found the experts largely in equipoise, discredited mother’s testimony and sincerity about religious objections, and appointed father limited medical guardianship for immunizations under the child’s best-interest standard.
Appellate stay was granted; on appeal the court affirmed, holding there was substantial credible evidence supporting the appointment and that the statutory school-exemption and absolute deference to asserted religious objections did not control here.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in finding the medical experts in equipoise and appointing father as immunization decision-maker	Experts were in equipoise; trial court appropriately relied on credible evidence and best-interest analysis to award limited medical guardianship to father	Trial court misweighed expert evidence and abused discretion; experts did not stand in equipoise	Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supports the court’s equipoise finding and appointment of father for immunizations
Whether the court misapplied a "sincerity" test and violated mother’s free-exercise rights	Court may examine sincerity when religious claim is material; mother’s credibility was properly assessed	Applying a sincerity test to religious objection is improper and infringes First Amendment; N.J. statutory school exemption precludes such inquiry	Affirmed — court permissibly assessed sincerity/materiality; statutory school exemption does not govern parental custody disputes
Whether mother’s asserted religious exemption precludes the best-interest analysis or automatic non-vaccination	Father: MSA and custody dispute require best-interest analysis; parental settlement prioritized child’s best interest	Mother: once a religious exemption is asserted, it must be honored and outweigh best-interest inquiry	Affirmed — best-interest standard applies (MSA emphasized child’s best interest); free exercise is subject to sincerity/materiality and credibility findings
Whether trial court’s credibility findings and factual conclusions justified naming father sole medical decision-maker for vaccines	Father: mother was not credible or sincere; medical risks to child were small and outweighed by vaccine benefits	Mother: insufficient evidence to find insincerity or a significant medical risk; court erred in factual findings	Affirmed — trial court’s credibility and factual findings were supported by competent, credible evidence

Key Cases Cited

Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (deference to Family Part discretionary rulings)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate review of family-court factfinding and custody standards)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (bench-trial factual findings entitled to deference)
Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480 (1981) (best-interests standard in custody determinations)
Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638 (1981) (enforcement of matrimonial settlement agreements)
Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20 (1988) (trial court credibility findings given weight on appeal)
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (sincerity threshold for religious- belief claims)
Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981) (religious- belief claim must be religious and sincerely held)
Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1981) (acts inconsistent with professed beliefs bear on sincerity)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. J.B., 459 N.J. Super. 442 (App. Div. 2019) (recognition of vaccination as effective public-health measure)