RUIRU JI VS. HANSON SHUEN LO (FM-18-0631-10, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)Â (CONSOLIDATED)
A-5206-14T3/A-0747-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Ji and Lo divorced in 2013; DJOD addressed custody, parenting time, and appointed a parenting time coordinator to resolve post-judgment disputes and required submission to the coordinator before court motion practice.
- Two daughters (Annie and May); Lo’s parenting time with Annie was suspended pending joint therapy; overnight visits with May were suspended for a period due to safety/home inspection concerns.
- Multiple post-judgment motions (30+ filings) followed; Family Part entered several orders in 2015 addressing parenting time, requests for in camera interviews, contempt allegations, therapy and expert appointment, and a prior-approval requirement for future motions.
- May 29, 2015: court adopted parenting coordinator’s recommendation on parenting time (no overnights restored at that time).
- June 5, 2015: court denied Lo’s requests for in camera interviews, appointment of a parental-alienation expert, orders restraining plaintiff with respect to therapy, and denied contempt; also entered a broad prior-approval order requiring pre-screening of further applications.
- July 24, 2015: court modified earlier order and restored limited overnight visitation with May; September 1, 2015: requests for reconsideration denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of parenting time / best-interest findings | Ji: Courts followed DJOD and parenting coordinator recommendation; parenting coordinator process appropriate. | Lo: Court modified parenting time without best-interest analysis or explicit factual findings; abdicated to coordinator. | Court: May 29 issue is moot (modified later); July 24 order not timely appealed and, in any event, no abuse of discretion found. |
| In camera interview of children | Ji: Not necessary because no custody change was pending; issues concern parenting time. | Lo: In camera interview needed to evaluate children’s preferences and circumstances (initially sought interview with May, later both children). | Court: Properly denied because there was no custody determination pending; denial affirmed. |
| Therapy, parental alienation expert, and contempt | Ji: Plaintiff complied with DJOD medical authority; children were receiving therapy; no interference shown. | Lo: Plaintiff failed to follow DJOD therapist requirement, engaged in alienation, caused Annie’s suicide attempt; requested expert and contempt findings. | Court: Lo failed to show noncompliance, interference, or parental alienation; appointment of expert and contempt were not warranted; holdings affirmed. |
| Prior-approval (pre-screening) requirement for further motions | Ji: Court needed to curb repetitive, frivolous, procedurally deficient filings to manage docket and abuse of motion practice. | Lo: No prior finding that motions were frivolous or abusive; order improperly broad and lacking required procedural safeguards. | Court (Appellate Div.): Reversed the June 5 pre-screening/prior-approval order as overbroad and entered without applying Parish standards; remanded for compliance with Parish. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to family court factual findings).
- Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2010) (restraining litigant access requires specific findings: past pleadings frivolous or abusive, scrutiny of new pleadings, prior use of sanctions, and narrowly tailored relief).