Major v. Maguire

• Decision Date: 12 January 2016
• Citation: 224 N.J. 1,128 A.3d 675
• Parties: Anthony C. MAJOR and Suzanne Major, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Julie MAGUIRE n/k/a Julie Di Liberto, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

224 N.J. 1

128 A.3d 675

Anthony C. MAJOR and Suzanne Major, Plaintiffs–Respondents,

v.Julie MAGUIRE n/k/a Julie Di Liberto, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Sept. 17, 2015.

Decided Jan. 12, 2016.

Theresa A. Lyons argued the cause for appellant(Lyons & Associates, attorneys; Ms. Lyons, Somerville, and Kristyl M. Berckes, Bridgewater, on the briefs).

Laurie L. Newmark argued the cause for respondents(Townsend, Tomaio & Newmark, attorneys; John E. Clancy, Morristown, on the briefs).

Brian G. Paul, Lawrenceville, argued the cause on behalf of amicus curiaeNew Jersey State Bar Association(Miles S. Winder III, Bernardsville, President, attorney; Paris P. Eliades, Sparta, of counsel; Mr. Paul, Mr. Eliades, Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Bridgewater, and Cheryl E. Connors, Woodbridge, on the brief).

Justice PATTERSONdelivered the opinion of the Court.

In Moriarty v. Bradt,177 N.J. 84, 827 A. 2d 203(2003), cert. denied,540 U.S. 1177, 124 S.Ct. 1408, 158 L.Ed. 2d 78(2004), the Court addressed the standard that grandparents must meet to secure an order compelling visitation pursuant to the Grandparent Visitation Statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1.The Court reasoned that because a judicial order compelling grandparent visitation infringes on parents' fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1 is subject to strict scrutiny.Id. at 117–18, 827 A. 2d 203.The Court determined that the statute could survive a constitutional challenge only if a "threshold harm standard" augmented the "best interests of the child" factors prescribed by the Legislature.Ibid.It ruled that when the child's parent or parents object to the proposed visitation, the grandparent seeking such visitation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that denial of his or her application would result in harm to the child.Ibid.It further held that if the grandparent meets that burden, the presumption in favor of parental decision-making is overcome, and the court sets a visitation schedule in the best interests of the child.Ibid.

In this appeal, the Court addresses the procedures by which a Family Part judge determines whether a grandparent has made a prima facie showing of harm to the child sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and manages the case if it continues beyond the pleading stage.Those issues arose in the context of a request by plaintiffsAnthony C. Major and Suzanne Major for visitation with their young granddaughter following the death of their son.DefendantJulie Maguire, the child's mother, allowed the grandparents only two brief visits with their granddaughter after their son died.

Plaintiffs filed an action under N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1 in the Family Part, seeking an order compelling defendant to allow them periodic visits with their granddaughter.The trial court determined that in their complaint, supplemented by their testimony, plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie showing that the child would be harmed unless visitation were ordered.It found that plaintiffs had improperly instituted litigation before defendant had denied visitation with finality, and dismissed the complaint.Relying on its decision addressing case management issues in grandparent visitation litigation in R.K. v. D.L.,434 N.J.Super. 113, 82 A. 3d 305(App.Div.2014), the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's determination and remanded for the trial court's reevaluation of the sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaint.

We reaffirm the holding of Moriarty that, in order to overcome the presumption of parental autonomy in the raising of children, grandparents who bring visitation actions under N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that denial of visitation will harm the child.This case, however, arises not from a court's findings on a full record, but the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6–2(e) at the pleading stage, in which plaintiffs must be afforded every reasonable inference of fact.Here, plaintiffs alleged in detail their involvement in their granddaughter's life prior to the death of their son and contended on that basis that their alienation from the child caused her harm.The trial court should have denied defendant's motion to dismiss and given plaintiffs the opportunity to satisfy their burden to prove harm.

Accordingly, we modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

I.

The child at the center of this case was born in 2007.Her parents, Anthony C. "Chris" Major and defendant, cohabited between early 2007 and late 2009.PlaintiffSuzanne Major, the mother of Chris Major, contends that during the period in which her son and defendant lived together, she visited her granddaughter approximately once every two weeks.PlaintiffAnthony Major, who was divorced from plaintiffSuzanne Major in 1997, is Chris Major's father.The record does not reveal the extent to which plaintiffAnthony Major maintained a relationship with his granddaughter during the first two years of her life.

In August 2009, Chris Major was diagnosed with cancer.Four months later, he and defendant separated, and he moved from the residence that he had shared with defendant and their daughter.

In February 2010, defendant and Chris Major entered into an agreement regarding the custody of their daughter.Under the terms of that agreement, the parents had joint legal custody, and the child spent about half of her time with each parent.Defendant was designated as the parent of primary residence, and Chris Major was the parent of alternate residence.Although a dispute between defendant and Chris Major relating to "parenting time and extracurricular activities" required court intervention in late 2011, that dispute was resolved, and the parents entered into a modified custody agreement that maintained their shared parenting arrangement.

PlaintiffSuzanne Major contends that, following her son's separation from defendant, she frequently spent time with her granddaughter.She asserted before the trial court that she visited the child at her son's home every weekend, that the child visited her home about once a month, that she attended dance recitals, and that she brought the child to "take your child to work day" annually for three consecutive years.She testified that she, her son, and her granddaughter took annual trips to Disney World, that they also travelled to Key West, Florida, and New York City in 2012, and that her granddaughter stayed at her vacation home in Maine.

According to his testimony before the trial court, following his son's separation from defendant, plaintiffAnthony Major visited his granddaughter approximately once every two weeks, often caring for her while her father underwent cancer treatment.He stated that he purchased a boat in 2011, and that in the two years that followed, he took his granddaughter on frequent fishing trips.

According to plaintiffs, in September 2012, Chris Major's health declined, and plaintiffSuzanne Major assumed greater responsibilities in her son's home.She testified that she took time off from work to assist her son, stayed at his home for half of each week, cooked the family meals, picked her granddaughter up at school two days per week, assisted with homework, and also played with the child.During the last weeks of Chris Major's life, plaintiffSuzanne Major lived with him on a full-time basis and cared for him.Plaintiffs contend that during Chris Major's final illness, plaintiffAnthony Major also spent time at his son's home with his granddaughter.

Following the death of plaintiffs' son on February 21, 2013, the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant was antagonistic.According to plaintiffs, it was one of Chris Major's "last wishes" that his parents bar defendant and her family from his funeral.Defendant did not permit her five-year-old child to attend the funeral without her.Defendant maintains that plaintiffs attempted to undermine her relationship with her daughter.According to defendant, plaintiffs called her disparaging names in the child's presence, and on one occasion, plaintiffSuzanne Major closed a door in defendant's face in order to speak with her granddaughter privately, "causing the child fear."

Testifying before the trial court, plaintiffs stated that defendant had permitted them to see their granddaughter only twice in the four months since Chris Major's death, initially in a half-hour visit at a skating rink and then in a five-minute meeting after a dance recital.According to plaintiffs, the constraints on their contact with their granddaughter prompted them to file their claim for grandparent visitation under N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1.

II.

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a uniform "Verified Complaint" form complaint in the Family Part.¹The trial court promptly scheduled a hearing to consider the request for visitation.After the trial court granted a brief adjournment of the hearing, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim in which she requested that the trial court deny plaintiffs' application for visitation and award legal fees to her.

At the initial hearing, plaintiffs requested a "very brief" discovery schedule so that they could present expert testimony and explore mediation, and requested an opportunity to visit their granddaughter in the interim.Defendant's counsel advised the trial court that the child was doing well in school and was happy at home with her mother, stepfather, and newborn brother.Defendant's counsel argued that plaintiffs had failed to present the mandated prima facie showing of harm to the child, and informally moved before the trial court for the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

The trial court advised plaintiffs that they would not be entitled to discovery in the absence of a prima facie showing that denial of visitation would impose a particularized, identified harm on the child and that their complaint had failed...