L.C. v. S.C., DOCKET NO. A-0099-15T2

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Parties: L.C., Plaintiff, v. S.C., Defendant-Respondent, and W.S., Defendant-Appellant. L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C., Defendant-Respondent, and W.S., Defendant. L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C., Defendant-Respondent, and W.S., Defendant-Appellant. R.S., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C., Defendant-Respondent, and W.S., Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. A-0227-15T2,DOCKET NO. A-0228-15T2,DOCKET NO. A-0099-15T2,DOCKET NO. A-1916-16T2,DOCKET NO. A-2491-16T2,DOCKET NO. A-0229-15T2
• Decision Date: 14 August 2019

L.C., Plaintiff,
v.
S.C., Defendant-Respondent,
and
W.S., Defendant-Appellant.

L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.C., Defendant-Respondent,
and
W.S., Defendant.

L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.C., Defendant-Respondent,
and
W.S., Defendant-Appellant.

R.S., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.C., Defendant-Respondent,
and
W.S., Defendant-Appellant.

DOCKET NO. A-0099-15T2
DOCKET NO. A-0227-15T2
DOCKET NO. A-0228-15T2
DOCKET NO. A-0229-15T2
DOCKET NO. A-1916-16T2
DOCKET NO. A-2491-16T2

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued: January 17, 2019
Argued: February 14, 2019
August 14, 2019

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Page 2

Argued (A-0099-15/A-0227-15/A-1916-16) January 17, 2019 and (A-0228-15/A-0229-15/A-2491-16) February 14, 2019 - Decided August 14, 2019

Before Judges Simonelli, O'Connor and Whipple.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket Nos. FD-04-2874-12 and FD-04-0186-14.

L.C., appellant, argued the cause pro se in A-0227-15, A-0228-15 and A-1916-16.

R.S., appellant, argued the cause pro se in A-0228-15, A-0229-15 and A-2491-16.

W.S., appellant pro se in A-0099-15 and A-2491-16.

Kenneth L. Winters argued the cause for respondent (Jardim Meisner & Susser PC and Fisher Family Law LLC, attorneys; Kenneth L. Winters and Lise A. Fisher, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

This matter has a long and tortious history marked by the frivolous and vexatious filings of appellants L.C., R.S. and W.S.¹ in their pursuit to compel

Page 3

genetic testing of respondent S.C. to determine the paternity of R.S. and by their blatant violation of orders sealing the record pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:17-42 and Rule 5:3-2.

R.S. and W.S. lived in Pennsylvania when this saga began. Over nine years ago, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Division (Court of Common Pleas) issued the first of two orders denying W.S.'s petitions to compel genetic testing of S.C. to determine the paternity of R.S., which the Superior Court of Pennsylvania² upheld. Impermissibly forum shopping, appellants pursued the matter in New Jersey.

In R.S. v. S.C., No. A-1185-13 and No. A-2102-14 (App. Div. Mar. 8, 2017)³ and L.C. v. S.C., No A-1817-14 (App. Div. Mar. 8, 2017), we addressed the paternity and genetic testing issues on the merits and affirmed the dismissal of paternity complaints filed here. We held that appellants' repetitive efforts to compel genetic testing of S.C., denied by the Pennsylvania courts, was barred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, the doctrines of subject matter jurisdiction, judicial comity, res

Page 4

judicata and collateral estoppel, and the paternity issue could not be re-litigated in New Jersey. We rejected R.S.'s argument, which he reiterates in his present appeals, that the Pennsylvania orders did not prohibit him from filing a complaint in New Jersey because he was a minor at the time and was not a party to the Pennsylvania paternity action. We also rejected appellants' unsubstantiated fraud claims, which they reiterate in their present appeals.

Our Supreme Court denied certification. L.C. v. S.C., 231 N.J. 297 (2017); R.S. v. S.C., 231 N.J. 425 (2017). Accordingly, we will not address appellants' arguments relating to that part of the July 17, 2015 Family Part order dismissing frivolous complaints to vacate the Pennsylvania orders and compel genetic testing of S.C. See Park Crest Cleaners, LLC v. A Plus Cleaners & Alterations Corp., 458 N.J. Super. 465, 472-73 (App. Div. 2019) (this court will not address trial court rulings that were cognizable in and dispensed with in a prior appeal); Washington Commons LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555, 564 (App. Div. 2010) ("[I]f an issue . . . has been determined on the merits in a prior appeal it cannot be re-litigated in a later appeal of the same case, even if of constitutional dimension.").

We will not address L.C.'s and R.S.'s arguments relating to the May 1, 2015 Family Part order imposing attorney's fees sanctions against them for

Page 5

violating orders entered on August 13, 2012 and August 2, 2013, sealing the record in the paternity actions. They did not file their appeal from that order until June 22, 2016. Thus, the appeal is untimely. R. 2:4-1.

We will not address R.S.'s arguments relating to the May 13, 2016 order reducing the attorney's fees sanctions imposed against him to judgment. R.S. did not designate this order in his notice of appeal. "[I]t is only the judgments or orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of appeal which are subject to the appeal process and review." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-1(e)(1) (2019); see also 1266 Apt. Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004). For the same reason, we will not address R.S.'s arguments relating to the June 8, 2017 and June 30, 2017 orders imposing attorney's fees sanctions against him,⁴ or R.S.'s and W.S.'s arguments relating to the January 17, 2017 order reducing the attorney's fees sanctions to judgment.

Page 6

We also will not address appellants' arguments relating to any other order from which they appeal. We have considered appellants' arguments relating to those other orders in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We limit our review to the trial court's imposition of attorney's fees sanctions against appellants pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 and Rule 1:10-3.

I.

We are compelled to recite the history of this matter in detail in order to place the attorney's fees sanctions in perspective.

R.S. was born in 1993. W.S. identified R.G. as R.S.'s biological father and obtained a child support order against him from the Court of Common Pleas. Seventeen years later, as R.S. approached the age of majority, and after S.C. had become a famous celebrity, W.S. disavowed R.G.'s parentage and claimed S.C. was her son's biological father. W.S. filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas to compel genetic testing of S.C. and R.G. to determine the paternity of R.S.

In a July 16, 2010 order, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed W.S.'s petitions. Under Pennsylvania law, the entry of a court order for support of a

Page 7

child determines the issue of paternity and collaterally estops the party who sought the support order from later raising the paternity issue against and seeking genetic testing of a putative parent. See Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635, 639-40 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Thus, W.S. was estopped from seeking genetic testing of S.C. as a matter of law. W.S. did not appeal.

Eight months later, W.S. filed a second petition in the Court of Common Pleas, again seeking genetic testing of S.C. In a May 19, 2011 order, the court dismissed the petition holding: "Matter is res judicata. A final order was entered July 16, 2010 on this matter, and [W.S.] did not appeal said order."

W.S. did not appeal. Instead, she teamed up with L.C., a New Jersey resident, and designated L.C. as R.S.'s custodian. L.C. filed a complaint against S.C. and W.S. in the Family Part, Atlantic County, for custody of R.S. and to compel genetic testing of S.C. to establish the paternity of R.S.

In two July 26, 2011 orders, the court granted L.C. custody of R.S., but dismissed her complaint, finding jurisdiction regarding paternity remained in Pennsylvania. The court subsequently transferred the matter to the Family Part, Camden County, after L.C. and R.S. moved to that county.

L.C. also intervened in the Pennsylvania matter, and she and W.S. filed motions to vacate the July 16, 2010 and May 19, 2011 orders of the Court of

Page 8

Common Pleas denying genetic testing of S.C. (the Pennsylvania orders). In a June 14, 2012 order, the Court of Common Pleas vacated the Pennsylvania orders and relinquished jurisdiction over the paternity issue because R.S. had reached the age of majority. S.C. appealed.

Four days later, L.C. filed a complaint against S.C. in the Family Part, Camden County, as R.S.'s "[g]odmother/guardian" to compel genetic testing of S.C., even though R.S. was now an adult. In an August 13, 2012 order, the court closed the proceedings to the public and sealed the record pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:17-42 and Rule 5:3-2. L.C., her attorney and W.S. were present at the hearing on August 13, 2012 when the court made clear the statute mandated closure of the proceedings and that all court records in the case are confidential. In addition, the order clearly stated it was entered pursuant to the statute and rule. L.C. and W.S. did not appeal.

In a second August 13, 2012 order, the court dismissed L.C.'s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over S.C. The court also found the case was subject to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.124 to -30.201, and New Jersey is obligated to recognize the continuing jurisdiction of a tribunal of another State that issued a child support or paternity

Page 9

order pursuant to the Act, which was the case here. Because S.C. had a pending appeal in Pennsylvania, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

L.C. filed a motion for reconsideration of the second August 13, 2012 order, which the court denied in a December 14, 2012 order. The court determined L.C. failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration and reiterated it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over S.C.

On April 23, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the June 14, 2012 order of the Court of Common Pleas, effectively reinstating the two Pennsylvania orders denying genetic testing of...