MEDWIN SOTO VS. ICO POLYMERS NORTH AMERICA(L-0467-10, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3858-14T4

Background

Parents Jesse (defendant-appellant) and Joy (plaintiff-respondent) share joint legal and equal physical custody of their son Randy per a 2007 PSA that requires the parents to choose between Bogota or Ridgefield Park schools based on the child’s best interests; disputes go to mediation then court.
Randy attended Ridgefield Park schools; by sixth/seventh grade his grades declined and Jesse moved to Upper Saddle River (USR) in 2013 to access a different school system he considered superior.
After mediation failed, Jesse filed a post-judgment motion (July 2014) to transfer Randy to Cavallini Middle School in USR; a plenary hearing followed with competing psychological expert testimony.
Jesse’s expert (Dr. Kohutis) opined the transfer would better challenge and motivate Randy; Joy’s expert (Dr. Mack) testified Randy is sensitive, poorly handles pressure/competition, has somatic complaints, and would likely worsen in a more competitive district.
The Family Part denied the transfer, emphasizing peer continuity, emotional attachment to school/community, and concerns about psychological impact and potential academic decline; the court discounted Jesse’s expert for inadequate testing and analysis.
After trial, Joy submitted fee materials (March 30, 2015) not admitted during trial; the court later awarded Joy $34,512 in attorney fees without allowing Jesse to respond to that submission; Jesse appealed both the transfer denial and the fee award.

Issues

Issue	Joy's Argument	Jesse's Argument	Held
Whether the child should be transferred to USR (best-interest standard)	Keep Randy at Ridgefield Park; continuity, friendships, and psychological stability serve his best interests	Transfer to Cavallini/USR for stronger academic challenge to motivate Randy	Denial affirmed: best-interest inquiry favored keeping Randy at Ridgefield Park given expert evidence of emotional vulnerability and continuity benefits
Whether the court may rely on non-comparative best-interest factors rather than an objective ranking of school districts	Best interest involves more than district rankings; peer relationships, continuity outweigh marginal district differences	Court should have compared school systems and chosen the objectively better one	Court properly applied Levine guidance: courts should focus on child’s best interests, not engage in determinative comparative ranking of districts; affirmed
Whether the judge’s questioning about “fractionalization” (50/50 time) or conduct showed bias	Not asserted by Joy	Alleged judicial bias from questions and reliance on fractionalization	No bias found; trial judge may interrogate witnesses; adverse rulings do not equal bias; affirmed
Whether the attorney-fee award violated due process or was an abuse of discretion	Joy sought fees under Rule 5:3-5(c); pointed to disparity in ability to pay and prevailing-party status; court considered submissions	Jesse argued he lacked opportunity to respond to post-trial fee submission and had changed financial circumstances	Fee award reversed and remanded: Jesse must be given opportunity to respond and court must explain calculation if award is made

Key Cases Cited

Levine v. Levine, 322 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 1999) (best-interest school-transfer analysis should not rest on mechanical district comparisons; consider peer continuity and community attachment)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (appellate review requires findings to be supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence)
Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (appellate deference to Family Part discretionary decisions)
Tannen v. Tannen, 416 N.J. Super. 248 (App. Div. 2010) (attorney-fee awards in family matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)