T.E.J. VS. H.A.W. (FD-07-2737-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-5020-16T4

Background

Parents dispute custody and relocation of N.J., born 2013; child lived primarily with defendant (mother) until ~age 3, plaintiff (father) had substantial contact thereafter.
After domestic-violence issues with a boyfriend, defendant moved to Savannah, Georgia to live with her sister and sought court permission to relocate with the child for a "better quality of life."
Trial court conducted a combined custody-and-relocation hearing, awarded joint legal custody but granted residential custody to defendant and permitted removal to Georgia, with a schedule giving father extended summer and holiday parenting time.
Father moved for reconsideration of the April 13, 2017 custody/relocation order; the motion judge denied reconsideration on procedural grounds because the trial judge had retired and, according to the motion judge, only the original judge could revisit the decision.
Father appealed the denial of reconsideration (not the original custody order); the Appellate Division vacated the denial of reconsideration and remanded for merits consideration, holding the new judge was not procedurally barred from reconsidering under the narrow reconsideration standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion judge properly denied reconsideration solely because the trial judge retired	Reconsideration should be allowed; the new judge may review under the narrow reconsideration standard	Reconsideration was procedurally barred because only the original judge could revisit the decision	Denied the procedural bar; vacated the denial and remanded for the new judge to apply the reconsideration standard on the record
Whether the custody/relocation decision was required to follow Bisbing best‑interest analysis instead of Baures	Trial court misapplied relocation standards and failed to apply N.J.S.A. 9:2‑4(c) factors; Baures is superseded by Bisbing so best‑interest analysis controls	Trial court applied a best‑interest approach and considered relevant factors; relocation was appropriate	Appellate panel did not decide merits (order not before it) but instructed that Bisbing's best‑interest framework governs contested relocations and is applicable upon reconsideration
Whether plaintiff timely appealed the underlying custody/relocation order	Father sought relief but did not appeal the April 13 order; instead appealed denial of reconsideration	—	Court noted the April 13 order was not before the panel because father did not appeal it; only the reconsideration denial was reviewable
Whether reconsideration standard is stringent and limited	Reconsideration appropriate only for palpable error or overlooked material evidence	Motion judge erroneously treated retirement of trial judge as categorical bar to reconsideration	Appellate Division clarified that reconsideration is narrow but available to the newly assigned judge; remanded for reconsideration on the merits if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (N.J. 2017) (establishes best‑interest analysis for contested relocations when parents share legal custody)
Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (N.J. 2001) (previous relocation framework referenced by the trial court)
D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990) (defines narrow grounds for reconsideration: palpable error or overlooked evidence)
Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2002) (courts review only orders designated in the notice of appeal; limited scope of review)
Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (deference afforded to Family Part discretionary decisions)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (recognizes family courts' special competence in custody matters)
Clarkson v. Kelly, 49 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 1958) (general principle that judges should not routinely overrule each other; exceptions may apply)