STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ERIC GROETHING(3-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2335-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- Parties divorced with two daughters (ages 13 and 9 when relocation was sought); joint legal custody, mother (DeLorenzo-Taglia/Flores) primary residential parent per 2010 consent order.
- Mother sought court permission (June 2014) to relocate with children to Texas to live with new husband and his children; New Jersey retained jurisdiction by consent if move allowed.
- Bergen Family Center evaluation (Dr. Schmerler) concluded mother had good-faith reasons and relocation would not be inimical under Baures; defendant’s expert (Dr. Bhalla) analyzed under best-interests and recommended children remain.
- Trial court found mother was primary caretaker, applied Baures factors, credited mother’s plans (housing, job) and that children would have comparable opportunities, and fashioned a parenting-time order for defendant.
- Court permitted relocation (Jan. 22, 2016); defendant appealed. Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to trial court’s factual findings and legal application of Baures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable legal standard for removal | Baures governs because mother is primary caretaker; burden is prima facie showing of good faith and non-inimicality | O'Connor/best-interests should apply because of substantial parenting involvement by father | Court: Baures applies; mother was primary caretaker, not a de facto shared-parenting arrangement (O'Connor inapplicable) |
| Prima facie showing of good faith and non-inimicality | Mother showed good-faith reasons (husband, blended family, job, housing) and proposed contact preserving father relationship | Father argued move lacked good faith or would harm children (loss of proximity to extended family; risk of parental alienation) | Court: Mother met Baures burden; findings supported by credible evidence and expert report; move not inimical to children |
| Weight of Baures factors | Mother: factors (reasons, comparable opportunities, visitation plan, children’s preferences) favor relocation | Father: Baures factors favor keeping children in NJ; cited his involvement and extended family ties | Court: Trial court’s Baures analysis was sound; factors favored mother; appellate court declined to overturn factual findings |
| Whether case should be remanded to apply N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 / best-interests custody factors | Mother: removal case, Baures is proper framework, not initial custody factors | Father: trial court should have made findings under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 and best-interests as in custody decisions | Court: Declined remand; N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 and pure best-interests standard do not apply to removal cases governed by Baures |
Key Cases Cited
- Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (N.J. 2001) (establishes moving-parent prima facie good-faith and non-inimicality burden for relocations when parent is primary caretaker)
- O'Connor v. O'Connor, 349 N.J. Super. 381 (App. Div. 2002) (applies change-of-custody/best-interests standard in rare de facto shared-parenting arrangements)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 205 N.J. 50 (N.J. 2011) (clarifies burden-shifting after movant's prima facie showing in relocation cases)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (discusses appellate deference to trial court findings in family matters)