Appellate Division Of New Jersey Affirms Change of Marital Settlement Agreement and Suspension of Father’s Parenting Time
Docket No. A-2940-21
Decided December 27, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Divorce Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
In a recent unpublished decision the Appellate Division of New Jersey affirmed the modification of the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that the parties would attend mediation for any disputes and suspension of father’s parenting time.
In N.T. v. C.T., Plaintiff, a physician, and defendant, a psychologist, were married in 2005 and divorced in 2021. Their one child—a daughter—was born in 2012. Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2020 after defendant advised she wanted to end the marriage and obtained a series of domestic violence temporary restraining orders against plaintiff. Defendant described plaintiff’s erratic behavior that led to plaintiff’s psychiatric hospitalization and resulted in his termination from employment. Defendant alleged both physical and emotional abuse. The parties ultimately entered into a consent order for civil restraints, requiring plaintiff to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and restricting him to supervised parenting time.
The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was incorporated into their Dual Judgment of Divorce entered on June 1, 2021. The parties agreed to joint legal custody, with defendant designated the parent of primary residence; and plaintiff being “afforded reasonable parenting time as agreed upon by [the parties], not to exceed four . . . weekends per month.” They agreed they would “maximize [their child’s] emotional and physical well-being . . . and afford her a sense of security and the affection of both parents” and neither would “directly or indirectly” alienate the child from the other. The MSA incorporated the civil restraints.
In January 2022, the parties entered into a subsequent consent order replacing their prior civil restraints agreement but memorializing their obligation to refrain from engaging in harassing or abusive behavior. The consent order also included any disagreements with the MSA that the parties first attend binding arbitration after mediation with an agreed-upon mediator.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff continuously engaged in conduct violating their prior agreements and court orders, citing instances of plaintiff’s involving the child in the details of the litigation and sending harassing communications to defendant, her attorney, her friends, and the parenting coordinator. On the eve of defendant’s remarriage in November 2022, plaintiff drafted and physically delivered to defendant’s home, accompanied by the child, a letter, signed by the child, alleging, among other disparaging claims, defendant and her now-husband had an extra-marital affair before the parties were divorced.
The judge temporarily suspended plaintiff’s prior parenting time arrangement, but restored daily FaceTime contact, and provided two specific days of supervised in-person visitation, again ordering that the parties refrain from discussing the litigation with the child. The judge emphasized that parenting time would not be suspended indefinitely and ordered plaintiff to submit to an evaluation at his own expense, to assist in determining the appropriate parenting time moving forward. The parties subsequently agreed by consent order that Dr. David Gomberg, Ph.D., would conduct a psychological evaluation and risk assessment. However, Dr. Gomberg notified the court that he received “a barrage of emails” from plaintiff questioning the doctor and the process causing the doctor to conclude he could not serve as the evaluator.
The judge rejected plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, invoking its obligation, particularly in emergent circumstances, to “put the children first,” and adding, “there’s no contract that’s going to stop that.”
The court found, as it had in the past, that plaintiff’s behavior continued to be of concern, and stated it was “confident” that it had the “jurisdiction and . . . responsibility to protect children.” The court reiterated its view that plaintiff “engaged in . . . frightening behavior.” It concurred that an arbitrator “can do just as good a job as” a court at dispute resolution, but emphasized again it must be satisfied that the child is safe and secure in that alternative process. The court stated, “[s]uch agreements between parents about children are enforceable only in equity and they are subject to the [c]ourt’s power to exercise continued supervisory control.”
Accordingly, the court suspended the ADR provisions of the parties’ January 2022 consent agreement. It clarified that it was “suspend[ing] enforcement of that order, until a time that . . . [it was] satisfied that . . . there’s little enough risk to the parties’ child, principally, that that’s an appropriate way to proceed, mediation, arbitration, ADR.” It found that plaintiff’s behavior, emblematic of his “dedicat[ing] himself to destroying any person or process that would interfere with his efforts to be with his child,” rendered the case unsuitable at that juncture for mediation and arbitration.
Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding Plaintiff’s conduct alarming and a need to protect the child from such behavior by modifying the parties MSA and consent order was appropriate.
This case is important to understand that although Court’s prefer and enforce agreements most of the time, certain circumstances could cause the Court to modify agreements in light of particularly unusual or alarming situations, such as Plaintiff’s conduct here.
If you have questions about divorce agreements, custody, parenting time, changes in circumstance requiring a modification, alimony, child support, and divorce, or appeals, contact the experienced matrimonial divorce attorneys at Hark & Hark today.
In recognition of these trying financial times, we are reducing fees and working with clients to come up with manageable payment plans. Initial consultation is always free and we are available remotely.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing domestic violence charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem counties. We represent clients in all towns in New Jersey, including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington ,Haddon Heights ,Pine Hill ,Bellmawr ,Haddon Township , Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.
