T.B. VS. D.B.Â (FM-15-0214-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5153-15T1

Parties divorced in May 2014; they have four children and share joint legal custody with mother (plaintiff) as parent of primary residence. Prior to divorce they separated in 2012.
Since 2012 the trial court entered four successive post-separation orders expressly prohibiting plaintiff's longtime boyfriend (a convicted sex offender subject to Megan's Law) from having any contact with or being in the presence of the children.
In November 2015 text messages suggested the children had been to the boyfriend's home and attended church with him, prompting defendant to move for residential custody.
Plaintiff cross-moved for an order permitting her boyfriend to have supervised contact; she submitted a certification claiming parole officers and the Division supported supervised contact but offered no supporting certifications or documentary proof.
The Family Part denied plaintiff's motion without a plenary hearing, finding plaintiff failed to show changed circumstances or provide competent evidence to modify the prior orders. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bar on plaintiff's boyfriend contacting the children should be modified	The bar should be lifted (or limited) because circumstances changed: plaintiff is engaged and alleges parole officers and the Division favor supervised contact	Prior restraining orders and safety concerns remain; no competent evidence of changed circumstances	Denied — plaintiff failed to prove changed circumstances or provide competent evidence to warrant modification
Whether a plenary hearing was required on plaintiff's motion	A plenary hearing and discovery (including Division records) were necessary to resolve factual disputes about the boyfriend's fitness	The motion papers contained only unsupported assertions and hearsay; no genuine factual dispute requiring plenary proceedings	Denied — plenary hearing not required because assertions lacked personal-knowledge evidence; no substantial dispute shown
Whether discovery of the Division's records was warranted before ruling	Plaintiff sought discovery of Division records to show favorable evaluation of boyfriend	No competent showing that the Division had evaluated the boyfriend; discovery unnecessary absent threshold showing	Denied — no competent evidence that justified Division-record discovery

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard of appellate deference to family court factual findings)
Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2010) (reversal only when family court conclusions are clearly mistaken)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (limits on appellate review and safeguarding justice)
Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2006) (burden to show changed circumstances to modify custody/parenting orders)
Faucett v. Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div. 2009) (two-fold sequential inquiry for custody modification)
Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (plenary hearing required only when submissions show a genuine substantial factual dispute)