L.M. v. A.M.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1703-19 |
| Parties | L.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.M., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
Before Judges Gilson, Moynihan, and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FM-04-1330-18.
Kourtney A. Borchers argued the cause for appellant (Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group, LLC, attorneys; Kourtney A. Borchers, on the brief).
Carolyn G. Labin argued the cause for respondent (Klineburger and Nussey, attorneys; D. Ryan Nussey and Carolyn G. Labin, on the brief).
In this appeal of post-judgment matrimonial orders, plaintiff L.M. (Lucy)1 argues the denial of her application to relocate to Pennsylvania with the parties' then twelve-year-old child was erroneous because, among other reasons, the trial judge erred in his interview of their child, improperly focused on Lucy's stipulation that she would not move without their child, and did not correctly analyze the best interests of the child pursuant to Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017). She also appeals an order awarding defendant A.M. (Adam) counsel fees and costs incurred in connection with her motion for reconsideration and an order granting Adam additional parenting time. We affirm the orders denying the relocation motion and granting additional parenting time and reverse the counsel fee award.
Lucy and Adam were married in 2004 and had one daughter, R.M. (Ruth), who was born in 2007. The parties separated in 2012 and divorced in 2018. Their final judgment of divorce incorporated their settlement agreement. They agreed to share joint legal custody of Ruth, with Lucy being the parent of primary residence and Adam being the parent of alternate residence, havingparenting time every other weekend. Adam, at times, also would see Ruth during the week. That arrangement had been in place since their separation in 2012.
In October 2018, Lucy met Joan in person after having communicated with her online since April. Lucy and Joan became engaged in December 2018 and married in April 2019. About two months later, Lucy filed a motion to relocate with Ruth to Pennsylvania, where Joan and her seven-year-old daughter lived, over three hours from where Adam lived in New Jersey. Adam filed a motion for primary residential custody and to establish new parenting plans depending on whether Lucy relocated with Ruth. Adam planned to continue to live in New Jersey with his fiancé Charlene and her eight-year-old son, less than twenty minutes from where Ruth lived with Lucy.
At oral argument on the parties' motions, counsel for both parties stated their agreement that the judge should interview Ruth and conduct a plenary hearing. The judge gave counsel an opportunity to submit ten questions before the interview.
Ruth was almost twelve on the day of the interview. After explaining that his "job" was to act in her best interests and giving her an opportunity to ask him questions, the judge began the interview by asking Ruth to tell him aboutherself. The first thing Ruth said was that she played field hockey and other sports. She talked about her extensive involvement in multiple sports and spending time with friends. When he asked her if she knew why she was meeting with him, Ruth answered, "[b]ecause you're trying to figure out where I'm going to live."
The judge inquired about her living arrangements in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania. He asked Ruth, "do you get along with [Joan]?" She answered, "[n]o." The judge requested that Ruth "[t]ell me about that."
The judge asked her about her relationship with Adam's fiancé Charlene.
[RUTH]: Um, I don't know, they're like really nice and I kind of -- I kind of like having them around better cause I feel like -- I don't know, they're just like -- they make things easier I feel like. I don't know. And like [Charlene's son's] someone to like hang out with and stuff because I really like him.
The judge asked her which parent she talks to more when she has problems. She answered, "I don't really talk to . . . either of them." He asked her which parent she would call first if she were hurt. She responded, "[p]robably my mom." She began to cry after that response. When the questioning resumed, she told the judge she would call her mom if she were hurt because she lived with her. She stated both parents attended her sports events and described the activities she liked to do with each parent.
The judge asked Ruth if she understood that she would have to change schools whether she moved with her mother to Pennsylvania or moved to live with her father in New Jersey. Ruth believed she could stay at her school if she lived with her father. The judge explained that she likely would not be able to stay at the same school if she lived with her father because he lived in a different school district. Having explained that to her, he asked if she had a preference about where to attend school.
The portion of the interview about which Lucy now objects began just after that exchange.
Later in the interview, the judge asked Ruth an open-ended question.
The judge asked Ruth if her parents talked to her about each other.
The judge asked her with whom she would want to live if she did not have to move.
Before the end of the interview, the judge asked Ruth if she had any questions.
To continue reading
Request your trial