R.K. and A.K. v. D.L., Jr.
434 N.J. Super. 113
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Maternal grandparents (R.K. and A.K.) sued under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 for grandparent visitation with their 12‑year‑old granddaughter Olga after the child’s mother died in 2011 and the father (D.L., Jr.) severely limited contact.
- Olga had lived with grandparents for several years post‑divorce; grandparents allege a close, long‑standing relationship and sudden termination of contact after the mother’s death.
- Father contends grandparents interfered with parenting, blames them for a prior accidental drowning of the grandparents’ other grandchild, and asserts continued contact would harm Olga.
- Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint (initially returned for form reasons under Directive 08‑11), joinder of issue occurred, but no discovery was conducted.
- Before discovery or an evidentiary hearing, father moved to dismiss under R. 4:6‑2(e); the Family Part granted the motion, dismissing for failure to state a claim and relying in part on plaintiffs’ lack of expert testimony.
- Appellate Division reversed: held the pleadings and certifications established a prima facie case; summary‑judgment standards applied; plaintiffs were entitled to discovery and an evidentiary process and were not required at the pleading stage to present expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint should be dismissed under R. 4:6‑2(e) before discovery/hearing | Complaint + certifications state prima facie case under N.J.S.A. 9:2‑7.1 and raise material factual disputes requiring discovery/hearing | Facts are undisputed; plaintiffs offer only general, unsubstantiated allegations | Reversed: court erred to dismiss; summary‑judgment standard applied because court considered extraneous certifications and material facts remain in dispute |
| Whether grandparents must present expert testimony at pleading stage to meet burden under Moriarty | Grandparents may meet burden with factual testimony; expert testimony not required at early stage | Plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence of harm, so dismissal warranted | Reversed: expert testimony not required to survive early motion; factual proof can establish harm and discovery should be permitted |
| Proper case management for grandparent visitation suits under Directive 08‑11 and Rule 5:4‑4 | Attorney‑prepared verified complaints should not be mechanically rejected; complex grandparent cases require individualized case management and possible discovery | Directive and practice treat FD docket non‑dissolution matters as summary actions with limited discovery | Court held such cases should not be automatically treated as summary actions; vicinage should designate contested cases for individualized case management and permit discovery when warranted |
| Standard to overcome parental autonomy and obtain visitation | Grandparents must establish by preponderance that visitation is necessary to avoid harm (Moriarty); prima facie showing triggers further fact‑finding | Parent’s constitutional autonomy and presumption favoring fit parent; denial appropriate absent proven harm | Affirmed legal framework from Moriarty: prima facie proof then preponderance showing of harm; trial court must apply N.J.S.A. 9:2‑7.1(b) factors and conduct fact‑sensitive inquiry with appropriate discovery/hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (summary‑judgment standard applies where court considers materials outside the pleadings)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (draw inferences in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (grandparents bear burden to show visitation necessary to avoid harm; evidence may be factual or expert)
- Daniels v. Daniels, 381 N.J. Super. 286 (affirming dismissal where intact parents united in opposition and no harm shown)
- Rente v. Rente, 390 N.J. Super. 487 (discussing limits of prima facie proof and procedural protections for expert evidence)
- Mizrahi v. Cannon, 375 N.J. Super. 221 (reversing award where trial court used best‑interest standard instead of Moriarty harm standard)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental autonomy and rise of statutory grandparent visitation rights)