Articles in the ‘Removal’ Category
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial to allow the mother to move with the parties’ child from New Jersey to North Dakota. The panel reasoned that in denying relief the trial judge placed far too much weight on the impact removal would have on the father’s rights and interests. Indeed, he should not have assigned weight to any of the circumstances contained in the parties’ competing certifications because the facts were largely disputed; the judge should have recognized the mother had satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case and conducted an evidentiary. Loos v. Brown, New Jersey App. Div., Februiary 8, 2013
In another well written and reasoned decision, Judge Jones (Superior Court, Ocean County, Family Part) determined a divorced parent need not have a job lined up in order to move with her child out of state : “The most practical and relevant inquiry is not whether the moving parent has a guaranteed job, but rather whether she has a reasonable plan for providing the child in her care with an economically stable home in the new state.” Benjamin v. Benjamin, New Jersey Ch. Div., February 4, 2013
Despite the trial court’s failure to have fully articulated the factors set forth in Baures, the Appellate Division upheld the determination denying the former wife’s request to relocate to Kansas City with the parties’ teenage son wherein the goal of the court was to seek “peace” between the parties for the four years of their son’s high school education; the son having now completed his first year of high school in New Jersey; and the trial judge’s extensive familiarity with this family and his long experience in the Family Part, as well as his clear reference to Baures, we defer to his finding that relocation would be “inimical” to the child’s interests, even though he did not explicitly review each of the pertinent factors. Barrett v. Barrett, New Jersey App. Div., July 30, 2012
In Paul Morgan v. Kristin Morgan (n/k/a Leary) (Morris County)
Argued November 9, 2010, Decided February 8, 2011 the Supreme Court in a 25 page decision revisited the standard for removal under NJSA 9:2-2 and Baures v. Lewis, 167 NJ 91 (2001). Justice Long wrote the decision. In typical fashion she clearly articulated the analysis, standards and protocol. The case demonstrates the instrumental role Justice Long plays shaping, guiding and giving insight to matrimonial/family law.
Former wife wanted to move from New Jersey to Texas in order to remarry. The parties had a child born of the former marriage. They were conferred with joint legal and physical custody. The former wife wanted the child to move to Texas with her. The former husband opposed the relocation.
An unemancipated child may not be removed from New Jersey without either parental consent or a court order. The father wanted to enroll the 8 year old child in a boarding school in India. He paid the tuition and bought airline tickets. The trial court entered an emergent order barring the child’s removal. H.P. v. A.P., New Jersey App. Div., March 12, 2010