G.T. v. M.A.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: DUGAN, J.S.C.
• Docket Number: FD-07-4129-10
• Decision Date: 17 November 2025
• Citation: G.T. v. M.A., FD-07-4129-10 (N.J. Super. Nov 17, 2025)
• Parties: G.T., Plaintiff, v. M.A., Defendant.

1

G.T., Plaintiff, v. M.A., Defendant.

No. FD-07-4129-10

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex

November 17, 2025

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

Plaintiff G.T. appeared pro se

Defendant M.A. appeared pro se

DUGAN J.S.C.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the court by way of counter applications for custody, parenting time and an adjustment of child support filed by Plaintiff G.T. ("NF") and Defendant M.A. ("NM"), respectively, regarding the minor G.A. (DOB: [omitted]). G.T. is G.A.'s natural father, and M.A. is G.A.'s natural mother. Both parties reside in New Jersey. NM has been the parent of primary residence since 2010.

The primary focus of the trial and this opinion is NF's request to modify residential custody and become G.A.'s parent of primary residence. The parties initially appeared in court on March 3, 2025, when the court heard preliminary testimony from the parties. NF was represented by counsel. The court ordered the parties to participate in its complimentary mediation program pursuant to R. 5:8-1 and 1:40-5. The court later scheduled and conducted an in camera interview of G.A. on May 13, 2025.

The parties attended mediation on April 16, 2025, and were unable to reach an agreement on any issue. The parties again appeared in court, with NM in person and NF by Zoom, on May 28, 2025, and the court scheduled the matter for trial beginning on October 15, 2025. During the May 28, 2025 hearing, the court also ordered additional parenting time for NF, including having alternating weeks during the summer and alternating weekends (Friday to Sunday) when the school year resumed. NF has exercised this parenting time consistently.

Counsel for NF filed a motion to withdraw as counsel before trial. The court granted the motion as unopposed, and NF proceeded pro se.

The parties appeared for trial on October 15, 2025, as scheduled. Both parties testified on their behalf, with NM assisted by a Haitan Creole interpreter. Neither party presented any other witnesses, although the court interviewed G.A. in camera again following trial.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

The court admitted just one exhibit into evidence on consent P-1, which was G.A.'s report card from the Deptford, New Jersey district for the 2022-2023 school year that NF introduced.

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

The court is the finder of fact in custody disputes. Before rendering its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court must assess the credibility of all witnesses who testified at trial. Some custody disputes turn on credibility more than others. In some cases, the court will find all the parties equally credible or that no disputed facts of consequence exist but that the parties simply have differing views on what custodial arrangement would best serve the child's interests. This case turns to some extent on credibility as set later set forth in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In determining credibility, the court may consider: (1) the witness' interest, if any, in the outcome of this case (2) the accuracy of the witness' recollection; (3) the witness' ability to know what they are talking about; (4) the reasonableness of the testimony; (5) the witness' demeanor on the stand; (6) the witness' candor or evasion; (7) the witness' willingness or reluctance to answer; (8) the inherent believability of the testimony; and (9) the presence of any inconsistent or contradictory statements. Model Jury Charge (Civil), 1.12K, "Credibility" (approved Nov. 1998). With respect to each witness who testified at trial, the court makes the following credibility determinations.

G.T. (NF)

The court finds NF credible. His body language, eye contact and overall demeanor appeared credible, and he was respectful to the court and the judicial process throughout the entirety of the proceedings leading up to and including trial. NF's testimony was straightforward and appropriately detailed in, for example, describing his care and love for the G.A., especially when it came to his schooling and the extended parenting time that NF exercised this past summer. NF did not embellish his testimony. NF was candid in describing the tumultuous history between him and NM but continuously took the high road when he spoke of her.

NF did not make any disparaging comments or give any testimony that was unfavorable to NM except to the extent such testimony related directly to the issues in this case. Otherwise stated, NF was clearly focused on G.A.'s well-being and not "scoring points" against NM.

In fact, while maintaining his position that G.A. would be better off in his care, NF spoke positively about NM, especially during the period between 2015 and 2020. Specifically, in 2015, the court had ordered weekly parenting time for NF on Saturday, with pick-ups being at 10 a.m. and drop-offs at 3 p.m. NF gave credit to NM for previously agreeing to more liberal parenting time than what the court had previously ordered, including vacations, holidays and some weekends.

When he could have exaggerated or embellished details to strengthen and support his argument for custody, NF refrained. For example, when asked about the stability of NM's home environment, NF declined to speculate or gratuitously disparage Hillside (where NM resides with G.A.) or NM herself. Overall, NF came across as very professional, reasonable and genuinely focused on G.A.'s best interests.

M.A. (NM)

The court finds NM to be less credible than NF. She was disruptive while NF testified, including by making faces and kicking the floor when she was upset.^[1] She also struggled to stay focused on the matter at issue, often trying to testify to unrelated matters despite the court's attempts to redirect her. This temperamental behavior continued throughout the trial, despite multiple reprimands from the court. Although NM appeared sincere in her desire to keep custody of G.A., certain aspects of NM's testimony and litigation conduct undermined her credibility. Several examples are as follows.

First, NM, as a general matter, appeared to exaggerate. She would make vague, unsupported comments that she is scared of NF. She would also make offhanded, inherently incredible statements, vaguely referring in one instance to NF's ploy to somehow obtain a million dollars from G.A. NM seemed more intent on addressing ancillary issues between her and NF in an attempt to "score points" than addressing G.A.'s best interests. This approach calls into question NM's overall credibility and ability to address G.A.'s best interests.

Second, NM testified inconsistently on certain material issues concerning the time G.A. had lived with NF. NM was very evasive and inconsistent about whether NF ever had custody of G.A. and whether G.A. had attended school in Deptford, where NF lives. NM testified on direct examination that NF had falsified documents to obtain custody of G.A. without NM's consent. Later, she contradicted her testimony by saying that G.A. had never lived with NF and that she never knew he had custody of G.A. After the court gave her an opportunity to clarify her testimony as to whether she meant to say that G.A. had never lived with NF, she testified that NF had kept G.A. from her and that during the 2020 school year G.A. stayed with NF for three or four months. The court then asked whether NM was sure G.A. had not lived with NF to attend school in Deptford during the 2022-2023 school year, citing P-1. She then testified that G.A. was not in Deptford for very long.

On cross-examination, NF asked NM how he could have enrolled G.A. in school in Deptford without documentation from Hillside and a signature from NM. She then admitted she had consented to G.A.'s enrolling at Deptford, which in turn meant that G.A. would have resided with NF (particularly considering the geographical distance between Hillside and Deptford of about eighty-five miles), but on the condition that it was only for a year. NM's contradictory statements on what should be a straightforward (but material) issue impact on her credibility. Although otherwise credible witnesses can forget or confuse certain time periods and dates, NM's contradictory testimony exceeded an understandable lapse in memory. NM's failure to recall whether G.A. had resided with NF for almost an entire school year just three years ago is inconceivable, and her false accusations of NF's alleged forgery is unacceptable and underscores NM's lack of credibility.

Third, the court finds NM fabricated conversations with G.A. concerning his relationship with NF and an instance of verbal abuse by NF during the summer of 2025. NM relayed a discussion in which G.A. had accused NF of making verbally abusive statements and asked her to testify in court concerning all the times NF had abused him. She also alleged that G.A. had said he did not wish to see or visit NF and that NF was speaking poorly about her. The manner in which NM testified appeared contrived and her statements exaggerated and far-fetched. Nonetheless, the court decided to have a follow-up in camera interview with G.A. on October 22, 2025, to see whether he had changed his preferences and ask about the alleged instance over the summer. G.A. credibly stated that the instance had not occurred, and that his preference remained the same.

The court therefore finds NM to be less credible.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I. BACKGROUND

G.A was born on March 27, 2010, and is the biological child of G.T. and M.A. The parties separated prior to G.A.'s birth, and NM has been the primary custodial parent for most of G.A.'s life. NF resides in Deptford, New Jersey, and NM resides in Hillside,...