NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Alimony, Child Support, Child Custody, Prenuptial Agreements, Essex, Morris, Mercer, Atlantic

 An interesting part of the practice of family law are the rare issues; the one that may not walk through the door every day.  Grandparent visitation cases oftentimes fit into this category.  They nearly always prove interesting, regardless of whether you represent the grandparent(s) or the parent(s), and they can quickly become complex and difficult (both emotionally and legally). 

The NJ Appellate Court issued an unpublished decision in the matter of L.A.B. v. B.L.P. and C.J.B. affirming and reminding both litigants and practitioners of the standard utilized by courts when asked to make a determination of whether or not a grandparent has a legal right to visitation with a grandchild if the parents so oppose the request.  Unlike contested custody matters between two parents where the standard the court must use is “best interest of the child”, our Supreme Court has determined that in the cases of grandparent visitation, it is the grandparent who must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that not having visitation with him/her/them would cause harm to the health or welfare of the child.  Not having the visitation would cause significant harm to the child, which the court must prevent as is its job as parens patraie. 

The statute that governs grandparent visitation is known as the Grandparents and Siblings Visitation Statute N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.  It requires that grandparents who seek visitation plead and show the potential for particularized harm to the child resulting from the lack of grandparent visitation.  The spirit of the statute was further clarified in the precedential NJ Supreme Court decision of Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 NJ 84 (2003).  Simply pointing out the flaws of the child’s biological parent(s) is not enough.   The harm to the child must be directly caused by the lack of grandparent visitation and can be remedied by having the grandparent visitation.  The harm must also be to the child and not to the grandparent.  The example illustrated in Moriarty, where the court found grandparent visitation appropriate, where the expert opined that visitation was needed “to protect the children from the harm that would befall them if they were alienated from their grandparents,….which would cause the children to believe essentially that half of them, that their mother’s half is evil, is damaged, is bad, and that this would cause self-esteem problems.”  This was a particularized, specific harm that would befall the children if the grandparents were not allowed visitation.  There was a special need for continued contact.  A close and loving relationship with a  grandchild is not enough. Neither is the loss of future memories.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We don't typically post about DYFS (now DCPP) or similar type cases on this blog as we usually focus on divorce and related issues. That said, for fun, I was reading the new cases that were decided yesterday and came upon a case that I found compelling, both because it indicated some systemic problems in custody cases and because it had some real strong language about parental rights - that while stating the obvious, perhaps, did so in a powerful way and in a way that needed to be reiterated. 

The case I'm talking about is  C.D., A.P. and D.D. v. N.D.M.  and A.L.   which was an unreported (non-precedential) decision released by the Appellate Division on January 8, 2013.  In that case, the aunt and grandparents received temporary custody of her niece and a best interest evaluation, to be completed within 90 days, was ordered.  The parties ultimately agreed to a joint expert to do the evaluation,  That evaluation, which by court order was to be completed in 90 days, took more than a year to complete.

SYSTEMIC ISSUE #1:  All custody and best interest evaluations are supposed to take 90 days or so.  That almost never happens.  Rather, it is not unusual for it to take 6 months or longer to get a report.  If it is a joint or court appointed expert, the party who doesn't like the report has the right to get their own report so add another several months to the process.  As in this case, where the mother's custody with her own child hinged upon this report, the prejudice cannot be quantified.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For more than a decade, we have known that biological parents have certain constitutional protections that help them defend against grandparents or other third parties seeking visitation with their children.  In fact, in New Jersey, because a fit parent has a fundamental constitutional right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions, a grandparent who seeks a visitation order must show that visitation is necessary
to avoid harm to the child.

Some times, however, someone other than the biological parents have custody of children.  Often these people assume the role of "psychological parent."  A psychological parent is essentially a person whom a child considers to be his or her parent, even though that individual may not be biologically related to the child. Does a psychological parent have the same constitutional protections as a biological parent when dealing with a request by a grandparent for visitation?  Yesterday, in the case of Tortorice v. Vanartsdalen, a reported (precedential) decision released by the Appellate Division, the answer to that question was no.

In this case, the litigation involved the maternal grandparent, who had custody and claimed to be the psychological grandparent and the paternal grandparents who sought greater visitation.  In this case, the maternal grandmother argued for the premise there is parity created between legal parent and psychological parent which provides the psychological parent with the constitutional protections
enjoyed by a legal parent as to third parties.  In so arguing, she was relying on a case involving the lesbian partner of a biological parent who was given parity.  The Court distinguished the relationship be finding that the partner was invited to the realm of family privacy such that that parent's right to autonomy is reduced by their own act.  This was not the case here, though interestingly, the court found that the psychological parent would now be in parity with the natural parents of the child (typically, because of constitutional considerations, natural parents have protections as to other parties as it relates to custody of children.)  In this case, the harm standard is not appropriate but rather, the best interest of the child standard must be used.

_______________________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

_______________________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in the online version of the New Jersey Law Journal, in a story by David Gialanella,, state Senator Loretta Weinberg of Bergen County introduced  legislation that would lower the burden of proof for grandparents and siblings seeking visitation.

In the year 2000, grandparent visitation became much more difficult to obtain as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville which held that Washington's "breathtakingly broad" grandparent visitation statute to be unconstitutional.  At issue was the constituonal right to parental autonomy vs. grandparents vistitation.  That case set off a wave a litigation nation wide attacking state's grandparent visitation statutes.  New Jersey was not immune to this and in 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Moriarty v. Bradt (a case in which I drafted the Petition for Certification.)  In Moriarty, the court held that grandparents may be awarded visitation over parental objections if a "potential for harm" standard can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.  SInce that case, it has been much more difficult for grandparents to get visitation because it is very difficult to show harm, and just alleging generic harm was not enough.  We have blogged about this in the past.  In the cases I have had since that time, in order to successfully obtain grandparent visitation, you almost had to show that the grandparent took on a parental role for some period of time and/or was a constant presence in the child(rens) lives. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Oftentimes in typical family life, circumstances unfold between grandparents and their children that result in a "cutting of ties," so to speak, where contact ceases not only with the children, but with grandchildren as well.  By that time, grandparents have commonly formed loving ties and bonds with the grandchildren that are at a risk of breaking due to the conflict with the parents.  What are a grandparents' rights to have visitation with the grandchildren in such a situation?  The answer can be found in New Jersey's Grandparent Visitation Statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, which imposes a difficult burden upon the grandparents to establish a right to visitation because the grandparent is essentially seeking to intrude upon the overwhelming strength of a parent's fundamental, constitutional right to raise their children.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have previously posted several blog entries about custody and parental rights where DYFS ("Division of Youth & Family Services"), NJ's child protective agency, has involvement.  To read those posts click here, here, or here.

On September 29, 2010, the NJ Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the standards to be applied to a sibling's request for visitation after children are placed outside the natural family's home and after they are adopted.  The opinion of In the Matter of D.C. and D.C., Minors provides guidelines for those siblings who seek to continue a relationship with their adopted and/or placed siblings and addresses a very important issue for families across this state.

The facts of D.C. can be summed up as follows: Nellie, the biological sister of Hugo and twins sought custody and visitation of her siblings after DYFS removed the children from her mother's care and placed them in separate homes.  In 2005, Nellie, then age 23, resided in Va.  Hugo was 14 years old at the time.  In 2006, Hugo was placed with Nellie.  In 2007, DYFS discussed visitation of the twins with Hugo and Nellie.  In August 2007, Va.'s child placement agency ("RDSS") approved placement of the twins with Nellie and Hugo but expressed concerns about Nellie's ability to support the children.  Based on that concern, visitation was recommended to ease the transition.  Then, in late 2007, RDSS rescinded its recommendation for placement of the twins with Nellie and Hugo because of Hugo's poor grades and Nellie's job loss.

The biological mother's parental rights were terminated in December 2007.  In January 2008, DYFS approved Nellie as kinship legal guardian of Hugo, but not the twins.  At the same time, Nellie was informed visitation with the twins would stop.  In April 2008, Nellie filed an action seeking placement of the twins in her care or alternatively reestablishing the sibling visitation.  DYFS opposed her application.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, Eric Solotoff, Esq. of my office  blogged on the issue of grandparent visitation in comparison to sibling visitation.  To check out his post, click here.

Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 NJ 84 (2003) is this state's seminal decision on grandparent visitation as decided by our Supreme Court.  Our courts have held that there is a presumption favoring deference to a fit parent's choice about visitation which must be overcome before the court may enter an order requiring visitation with grandparents on the ground that it would be in the child's best interests.  Moriarty at 115, 117.  The US Supreme Court also addressed this issue in the matter of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I authored and released a Family Law Alert regarding the new Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings issued by the American Psychological Association Issues. To view a PDF version of the alert, click here.  The full text of the alert is as follows:

The American Psychological Association (APA) notes that parties resolve child custody issues amongst themselves in 90 percent of the cases. When parties cannot resolve custody and visitation issues (called “parenting time” in New Jersey) amongst themselves or after a court’s early intervention program, the next step is to have a child custody evaluation performed by a forensic psychologist. In some cases, the court will appoint this expert. In others, the parties may agree upon a joint expert. In bitterly contested cases, parties often have their own custody expert - and there may also be a court appointed expert.

In 1994, the APA developed Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings. The APA issued updated guidelines effective February 21, 2009, which are effective for the next 10 years. These Guidelines consist of 14 individual guidelines that are meant to be aspirational in nature, and not mandatory. Rather, the Guidelines are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and a high level of practice by psychologists. The Guidelines were not intended to be exhaustive nor replace the judgment of the psychologist. That said, they provide fodder for cross-examination during a custody trial if the expert is not aware of the Guidelines and/or fails to follow them. A rationale and application is provided for each of the following 14 Guidelines:

1.  The purpose of the evaluation is to assist in determining the psychological best interests of the child. Since the ultimate standard in deciding a custody case is “the best interests of the children,” the Guidelines reinforce that the psychologist should be focusing on the psychological best interests of the children, which is what the Court expects. The Guidelines encourage the expert to weigh and incorporate family dynamics and interactions; cultural and environmental variables; relevant challenges and aptitudes for all examined parties; and the child’s educational, physical and psychological needs.

Litigants going through the process of a custody evaluation should provide the expert with all relevant information regarding these factors. In reviewing the expert report, make sure that the expert has addressed them all. If it is your own expert, you may want to inquire why these issues are not included. If it is a neutral or adverse expert, it is a potential issue to be raised on cross examination. With the neutral expert, you may not want to wait until trial. If any of these factors are important enough to impact the final recommendation, you may want to ask the expert to reconsider his or her recommendation in light of this information.
 

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The issue of sibling visitation does not come up all that often.  However, it comes up often enough for there to be a statute that addresses it.  In fact, it is part of the same statute that provides for grandparent visitation.  The statute (N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1) provides, in part,  that:  " A grandparent or any sibling of a child residing in this State may make application before the Superior Court, in accordance with the Rules of Court, for an order for visitation. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the granting of visitation is in the best
interests of the child. The statute then provides a list of 8 factors for a court to consider.

Subsequent to the enactment of that statute, the US Supreme Court  in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000), and the NJ Supreme Court in Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004) issued opinions regarding third party visitation statutes in the context of grandparent visitation. In light of the decision is Troxel which struck down Washington's grandparent visitation statute,  the Court in Moriarty construed the NJ statute to require grandparents, when the parents refused visitation, to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that such visitation was "necessary to avoid harm to the child."  I know a little bit about the Moriarty  case as I wrote the Petition for Certification in that matter.

The issue of sibling visitation was addressed in an unreported case released on November 6, 2008 entitled T.R. v. L.R. To see the full text of the case, click here.

This is a sad case which involved domestic violence, allegations of abuse and estrangement between parent and child.   In this case, an older sister filed an application to intervene in her parents' divorce case , seeking visitation with her younger sister.  In this case, the trial court applied the same standards as it would to a grandparent visitation case. The daughter appealed on the basis that the Troxel/Moriarty analysis applied only to grandparents and not to siblings because the nature of the relationship is different. 

The Appellate Division never decided that issue in affirming the trial court decision because it said that they were unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion for visitation. 

The decision is interesting because the Court also noted other judicial authority which commented on importance of sibling relationships.  That said, given the facts of this case, the judge never had to reach that issue.

However, given the constitutional questions addressed in Troxel/Moriarty it appears likely that an analysis under those cases will necessarily be required in future sibling visitation cases. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link