More and more, it seems like an epidemic, particularly in certain counties, to appoint more and more people to do things that perhaps should be done by the court. In one pre-judgment case that I have (i.e. there is no final custody and parenting plan much less a Marital Settlement Agreement), there is a Guardian Ad Litem, a Parent Coordinator, a family therapist (really a reunification therapist but it is verboten to call them that), a psychologist performing a neuropsychological evaluation and a psychiatrist performing psych evaluations of both parents – not to mention that both parties have psychologists performing custody evaluations. In some cases, both a GAL and an attorney for the child are appointed. Sometimes courts appoint there own custody experts and forensic accountants.

I have often wondered whether these appointments are to really assist the court or whether they are to put so much financial pressure on parties (the appointments are often in smaller cases too) that they have to give up and settle.

Either way, the case law makes clear that courts cannot delegate decision making to third parties (P.T. v. M.S.) and moreover, must adjudicate disputes properly before the court, including enforcement.

This leads to the interesting case of Betru v. Firdu, an unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division decision released on June 8, 2026. In that case, the trial court expanded a parent coordinator’s (PC) authority to calculate child support and then determine arrears. The Appellate Division reversed.

The case is an interesting read and seemingly a procedural nightmare inasmuch as it appears that there were at least 4 different judges that addressed these issues over time – none of whom actually decided the issue with finality. More than that, the trial court adopted the PC’s retroactive modification of child support, which, aside from being beyond the scope of what the PC was already impermissibly requested to do, violates statute which prohibits retroactive modification of child support to a time before a matter is pending in court.

As to the PC being asked to address child support, the Appellate Division noted that:

It was further improper for the parenting coordinator to address child support. As we noted, effective September 1, 2023, our Supreme Court adopted Rule 5:8D governing parenting coordinators. The Rule contains no language permitting a parenting coordinator to address child support …

The opinion then went on to discuss what the Court Rules say a PC can actually do:

The [p]arenting [c]oordinator should provide guidance and direction to the parties with the children’s best interests as the primary focus by reducing conflict and fostering sound decisions that will aid positive child development. The goals of the [p]arenting
[c]oordinator shall be to aid the parties in monitoring and effectuating the existing parenting plan . . . ; to reduce misunderstandings and miscommunication between the parents; to help reduce litigation filed with the Family Part; to clarify priorities of the parents and their children; to explore possibilities for compromise; and to develop methods of communication that promote collaboration in parenting. The [p]arenting [c]oordinator should facilitate decision-making by the parties whenever practicable and make recommendations when the parties cannot agree.

Now, the Order was originally ordered before the Court Rule was enacted in 2023 (though it was improper anyway given prior pilot programs, etc. regarding PCs). That said, the Appellate Division held:

We are aware the second motion judge did not have the benefit of Rule 5:8D and the Directive’s guidance. However, the Rule existed and clearly applied when the third and fourth motion judges heard this case and considered defendant’s objections to the parenting coordinator addressing child support. For these reasons, the fourth motion judge should not have considered the parenting coordinator’s recommendations regarding child support, because they were void as a matter of law, and should have decided the dispute himself. (Emphasis added)

The judge should have decided the dispute himself!

The takeaway here is that while it is easy to bring in the alphabet soup of experts, etc. to assist, at the end of the day, decisions have to be made by judges. Period.

_______________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog. He is also the former and founding Co-Chair of the Family Law Department 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 is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.