Tortorice v. Vanartsdalen
27 A.3d 1247
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Jason was born July 8, 2005, to Cindy, who had ongoing drug issues, and lived primarily with Lynne, Cindy's mother.
- Cindy had relapsed in May and October 2006; custody was granted to Lynne by a December 2006 consent order until further order.
- In March 2007, Jason's natural father Sonny was established; grandparent visitation and parenting time orders were entered in April 2007.
- Sonny's visits were initially supervised and later became sporadic; Lynne allowed continued contact with Jason.
- November 2009, Tortorices filed for grandparent visitation; Lynne opposed a broad order but acknowledged desire for Jason to have ongoing contact with the Tortorices.
- The motion judge treated Lynne as a psychological parent but approved a visitation schedule based on what was found to be in Jason's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychological parent status conferred by V.C. affects parental autonomy in grandparent visitation | Tortorices | Vanartsdalen | Psychological parent status does not create a constitutional autonomy right; best interests standard applies |
| Whether the presumption of parental autonomy applies to a non-natural parent in a visitation dispute | Tortorices | Vanartsdalen | Presumption does not apply when the non-natural parent has status like a psychological parent without full parental rights |
| What standard governs grandparent visitation when a custodial parent and third party are in dispute | Tortorices | Vanartsdalen | Best interests standard applies; no automatic harm-focused test unless harm to child is shown |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing a grandparent visitation schedule over the parent's objection | Tortorices | Vanartsdalen | No error; schedule deemed in child's best interests and consistent with prior consent orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (N.J. 2003) (best interests override applies when presumption of parental autonomy is overcome)
- V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (N.J. 2000) (psychological parent criteria; distinguishes third-party status and autonomy rights)
- Mizrahi v. Cannon, 375 N.J. Super. 221 (App. Div. 2005) (psychological parenthood does not create a right to joint custody or visitation)
- In re D.C., 203 N.J. 545 (N.J. 2010) (parental autonomy protected; privacy and autonomy framework for family decisions)
- M.F. v. Dep't. of Human Servs., Div. of Family Dev., 395 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2007) (clarifies limitations of psychological parent status and related rights)