P.V.P. VS. F.J.C. (FM-13-0449-09, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1966-17T2
P.V.P.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
F.J.C.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted March 16, 2020 – Decided June 8, 2020
Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County,
Docket No. FM-13-0449-09.
August J. Landi, attorney for appellant.
Senoff & Enis, attorneys for respondent (Michael Jude
Gunteski, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
The parties are before us a third time. They married in 2003, and their
son, John, was born in 2008.1 As we explained in our two prior opinions, a final
restraining order (FRO) entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic
Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and pendente lite orders
entered in the matrimonial litigation, awarded plaintiff custody of John and
granted defendant supervised visitation. P.V. v. F.C., No. A-3151-09 (App. Div.
Feb. 8, 2011) (slip op. at 1–2); P.V.P. v. F.J.C., No. A-2859-14 (App. Div. April
13, 2016) (slip op. at 2–3). The property settlement agreement executed by the
parties in 2010, and annexed to their judgment of divorce (JOD), provided that
plaintiff would have sole legal custody of John. With respect to parenting time,
the parties agreed to "abide the [c]ourt's [o]rder regarding reunification therapy."
Motion practice continued unabated after the divorce, some history of
which we set out in our prior opinion. P.V.P. at 3–4. Ultimately, in May 2012,
the court entered an order granting defendant's request for a plenary hearing on
modification of custody and parenting time. Id. at 5. However, the judge then
hearing the matter delayed the plenary hearing until defendant paid in full a
$25,000 fee award. Id. at 10. We reversed and remanded the matter to the
1
We have used initials in the caption of our opinion and fictionalized the child's
name throughout pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(3) and (9).
A-1966-17T2
2
Family Part to conduct the plenary hearing on defendant's modification
application within ninety days before a different judge. Id. at 26–27.
For our purposes, it suffices to say that the plenary hearing was not
scheduled within ninety days, and did not commence until April 26, 2017, before
a judge who had no prior involvement in the matter. After a multi-day hearing,
which we discuss below as necessary to address the issues presented on appeal,
the judge issued an oral decision and accompanying order (the June 2017
order).2 He concluded defendant had failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances to warrant modification of residential custody and
refused to modify the FRO that, among other things, prohibited defendant's
contact with his son, and hence, by implication, his presence at John's school.
The judge granted defendant unsupervised parenting time with John one
weeknight per week and one supervised overnight on the weekend, and, if after
two months without any incident, two unsupervised weeknights, all subject to
further evaluation at a hearing to be held November.3 The judge reserved on
plaintiff's application for counsel fees incurred during the plenary hearing.
2
Defendant represented himself during the hearing.
3
Defendant had remarried, and his new wife was supervising visitation between
John and defendant for several years at this point.
A-1966-17T2
3
On September 19, 2017, the judge entered an order (the September 2017
order) awarding plaintiff $30,000 in fees and costs, which was seventy-five
percent of her request. In a written statement of reasons, the judge rejected
defendant's claim that plaintiff's opposition to his request to modify custody
demonstrated bad faith, since, at the time defendant brought the motion, he had
only limited court-ordered supervised visits with his son. The judge also found
that because defendant represented himself throughout the plenary proceedings,
he incurred no expenses. However, the judge concluded defendant protracted
the litigation and rejected all reasonable possibility of settlement. Noting that
defendant did not contest his ability to pay, the judge ordered defendant pay the
award within thirty days.
On a date undisclosed by the record, plaintiff forwarded to the judge a
September 11, 2017 letter from John's treating psychologist, Charles D. Katz,
Ph.D., to plaintiff's counsel. Dr. Katz had been counseling John for
approximately two-and-one-half years, and, before the plenary hearing,
defendant had filed an in limine motion to bar Dr. Katz's testimony and order
the appointment of a new therapist. 4 The letter detailed Katz's interaction with
4
There is reference to the motion as pending in a transcript of proceedings
during an April 2017 case management conference that immediately preceded
A-1966-17T2
4
John during sessions held immediately before the first overnight visitation
contemplated by the June order, and those held thereafter. Simply put, the letter
painted the picture of a young boy tormented by apprehension of spending
overnight parenting time with his father and anxiety thereafter.
Now represented by counsel, defendant filed a motion asking the court to
have John's court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) provide an updated
report and permit defendant to retain his own expert. It additionally sought
release of the transcript of an in-camera interview the judge conducted with John
during the plenary hearing, expungement of Dr. Katz's letter and an order barring
him from continuing to treat John. Defendant also sought to stay the prior award
of counsel fees pending further hearings on modification of custody and
parenting time. Plaintiff cross-moved to terminate defendant's overnight
parenting time.
The judge heard argument and rendered an oral decision. In part, in
addressing defendant's objections to Dr. Katz's report and his inability to
respond to "this lopsided view" of John's anxiety, the judge said
[defendant] may take the position that maybe these are
inappropriate feelings the child had . . . . There's no
the hearing. At the time, plaintiff's counsel indicated Katz did not wish to testify
and plaintiff did not intend to call him as a witness. Katz did not testify at the
hearing.
A-1966-17T2
5
reason for these things. But the child expresse[d] it
alone to me and then expresse[d] the same thing to the
doctor? I mean, whether it has anything to do with
[defendant's] fault or not, I'm still dealing with a child
who has these anxieties, appears to have these anxieties
based on what I've heard and what I saw when I
interviewed him as well as [what] Dr. Katz saw.
The two orders entered by the court permitted the release of a CD and transcript
of the judge's in camera interview of John, denied defendant's request to retain
his own expert, denied expungement of Dr. Katz's report and permitted his
continued counseling of John, denied any stay of the fee award and suspended
overnight parenting time pending reunification therapy and a recommendation
from the therapist that it continue (the November 2017 orders).
Defendant appeals from certain provisions of the June, September, and
November 2017 orders. He argues: the court violated his constitutional rights
by failing to hold the plenary hearing for five years after first ordered; and, that
the judge's findings following the hearing were unsupported by substantial
credible evidence and defendant demonstrated substantially changed
circumstances that justified an award of joint legal custody and expanded
parenting time. Defendant also contends that the November orders suspending
overnight visits resulted from a violation of his due process rights becaus e the
judge relied on Dr. Katz's letter to plaintiff's counsel without affording
A-1966-17T2
6
defendant an opportunity to rebut its contents. Defendant also argues he
formally moved to modify the FRO, but the judge never ruled on the issue.
Lastly, defendant argues the award of counsel fees should be set aside.
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable
legal standards. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.
I.
While not condoning the significant delay between the 2012 order
granting defendant a plenary hearing and its start nearly five years later, we
reject plaintiff's asserted constitutional violation. Defendant correctly points out
that Rule 5:8-6 requires the court to set a custody hearing date "no later than six
months after the last responsive pleading." Initially, the order granting a plenary
hearing anticipated a brief period of discovery, but otherwise anticipated
compliance with the Rule. Discovery was extended, and unfortunately, the
judge then managing the case conditioned the hearing on defendant's payment
in full of a fee award.
Shortly after our judgment reversing that condition and remanding, the
parties engaged in mediation. Both parties acknowledge that in July 2016, the
court conducted a case management conference at which they agreed updated
A-1966-17T2
7
discovery was necessary. In August, four months after our judgment, the parties
entered into a consent order permitting additional discovery, and, it appears from
the record that further discovery took place through December. Initially, the
hearing was assigned to a judge serving on recall. We cannot say with certainty
why he did not conduct the hearing; however, the matter was assigned to another
recall judge who held a case management conference on April 4, 2017, and
began taking testimony on April 26.
During this time, defendant continued to have his regularly-scheduled
visits with John prior to the plenary hearing, and provided no evidence
supporting his claim that the delay allowed plaintiff to further alienate John's
affections for his father. As we discuss below, after conducting the plenary
hearing, the judge rejected defendant's claim. We need not address the argument
any further. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Turning to defendant's substantive challenges to the June order, it is
axiomatic that the best interests of the child is the fundamental legal principle
guiding our review. D.A. v. R.C., 438 N.J. Super. 431, 450 (App. Div. 2014)
(citing Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317–18 (1997)). "A custody
arrangement adopted by the trial court, whether based on the parties' agreement
or imposed by the court, is subject to modification based on a showing of
A-1966-17T2
8
changed circumstances, with the court determining custody in accordance with
the best interests standard of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4." Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309,
322 (2017). "A party seeking to modify custody must demonstrate changed
circumstances that affect the welfare of the child[]." Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J.
Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). "Absent exigent circumstances, changes in
custody should not be ordered without a full plenary hearing." Faucett v.
Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108, 119 (App. Div. 2009) (citing R. 5:8-6; Entress v.
Entress, 376 N.J. Super. 125, 133 (App. Div. 2005)).
It is equally well-established that "[w]e grant substantial deference to a
trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which will only be disturbed
if they are manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent,
relevant and reasonably credible evidence." N.H. v. H.H., 418 N.J. Super. 262,
279 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Crespo v. Crespo, 395 N.J. Super. 190, 193–94
(App. Div. 2007)). This is particularly so where the evidence is largely
testimonial and rests on the judge's credibility determinations. Gnall v. Gnall,
222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015). In addition, we particularly "recogniz[e] the court's
'special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters.'" Thieme v. Aucoin-
Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 282–83 (2016) (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394,
413 (1998)). However, "[a] more exacting standard governs our review of the
A-1966-17T2
9
trial court's legal conclusions[,] . . . [which] we review . . . de novo." Id. at 283
(citing D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245–46 (2012)).
In this case, the hearing judge considered the statutory factors, and
defendant does not contend otherwise. Instead, defendant claims the judge
failed to address defendant's testimony with respect to the statutory factors, and
the judge's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a change
of circumstances warranting modification was contrary to the prior orders
granting a plenary hearing on the issue. We disagree.
The analytic paradigm is clear. In considering an application for
modification, the issue
is two-fold and sequential. Defendant must first make
"a prima facie showing . . . that a genuine issue of fact
exists bearing upon a critical question such as the best
interests of the child[] . . . ." Pfeiffer v. Ilson, 318 N.J.
Super. 13, 14 (App. Div. 1999) (alteration in original).
Once a prima facie showing is made, defendant is
entitled to a plenary hearing to resolve the disputed
facts. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. at 111.
[Faucett, 411 N.J. Super. at 127–28.]
In short, prior orders granting a plenary hearing by no means compelled the
result that defendant was entitled to modification of the existing custody and
parenting time orders. However, defendant seemingly fails to recognize that the
judge actually did modify the prior custody and parenting time arrangement.
A-1966-17T2
10
Pursuant to the June order, the judge granted defendant one, and potentially two,
unsupervised weeknight visits with John. Until then, all of defendant's parenting
time was supervised. The June order also granted defendant one supervised
overnight visit with John; until then, defendant had no overnight parenting time
with his son.
We gather from the conclusion of defendant's brief—which asks for us to
exercise original jurisdiction and implement a specific parenting time
schedule—that he deems the June order to have been an inadequate
modification. We also note that defendant does not specifically challenge the
denial of that portion of his modification request that sought joint custody of
John. In any event, we reject the invitation to exercise original jurisdiction and
affirm the relevant provisions of the June order.
In his oral decision following the plenary hearing, the judge specifically
reviewed the statutory factors with reference to the hearing testimony that
supported his findings. The judge noted that while defendant produced
numerous witnesses, their testimony was not particularly helpful. He observed,
for example, that a number of witnesses were complimentary of plaintiff's care
toward John. In short, the judge heard testimony from plaintiff, defendant, and
A-1966-17T2
11
more than one dozen other witnesses. We find not basis to substitute our
judgment for that of the hearing judge.
II.
We consider out-of-sequence defendant's multiple challenges to the
November order. Defendant asserts that the judge violated his due process rights
by considering and relying on Dr. Katz's September 11, 2017 letter and using it
as a basis to terminate defendant's overnight visits with John. Defendant further
argues the judge "off-loaded his judicial responsibility" to the reunification
therapist, who the order charged with deciding when overnight visits could
resume. While "we are obliged to give deference" to what we recognize was the
judge's "exceedingly difficult and delicate decision[] as to the best interest of"
John under the circumstances presented, Abouzahr v. Matera-Abouzahr, 361
N.J. Super. 135, 157 (App. Div. 2003), whether the proceedings complied with
constitutional guarantees is a matter of law, for which we owe no deference to
the judge, E.S. v. H.A., 451 N.J. Super. 374, 383 (App. Div. 2017). We agree
that defendant was denied a fair opportunity to rebut the contents of Dr. Katz's
letter, and, because the judge relied heavily on that letter to modify defendant's
parenting time with John, we reverse those provisions of the November order
that suspended overnight visitation and remand for further proceedings.
A-1966-17T2
12
"In implementing the 'best-interest-of-the-child' standard, courts rely
heavily on the expertise of psychologists and other mental health professionals."
Kinsella, 150 N.J. at 318. Our Rules specifically recognize the court's ability to
appoint its own expert, and the parties' right to retain their own experts. Rule
5:3-3(a). It is generally "improper for a court to decide a case in reliance on an
expert opinion without allowing the parties to examine the expert." Luedtke v.
Shobert, 342 N.J. Super. 202, 215 (App. Div. 2012). "Clearly, the right to cross-
examine expert witnesses is of central importance in custody matters[, and] the
right of cross-examination is a critical component of the adversary system." Id.
at 216; see also Entress, 376 N.J. Super. at 132–33 (reversing trial court's order
changing custody without a plenary hearing based on "unsworn letters from a
'frustrated' [court-appointed] therapist").
As it relates to this case, the Court has specifically acknowledged that
"[e]valuators are more likely than treating psychologists to be objective, noting
a
psychiatrist who has served as a therapist for one
contesting party in the past, or who is currently a
therapist for either one, is simply not in an ethical
position to make a recommendation regarding the best
interests of the children because of the lack of first-
hand knowledge and/or clinical evaluation of the
opposing spouse whom he or she has never seen.
A-1966-17T2
13
[Kinsella, 150 N.J. at 320 (quoting Melvin G.
Goldzband, Confidentiality in Disputes Over Custody
and Visitation, 1 REV. CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY & L. 133,
138 (1990)).]
The judge's reliance on Dr. Katz's letter, sent to plaintiff's counsel after a plenary
hearing where the court heard no expert testimony at all, was legal error. The
judge relied on its contents to grant relief that plaintiff sought in her cross-
motion, i.e., termination of overnight parenting time, without according
defendant any opportunity to challenge or rebut the letter's contents.
We remand the matter for the court to conduct a further hearing on the
parenting time schedule that serves John's best interests. We agree with
defendant that our opinion in P.T. v. M.S., under decidedly different facts,
cautioned courts not to "allow experts to shoulder excess responsibility or
authority, nor trial judges to cede their responsibility and authority[,]" and that
the judge "must not abdicate its decision-making role to an expert." 325 N.J.
Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 1999). We stress that following the remand hearing,
it is solely the judge's province to decide what the appropriate parenting time
schedule should be and how and when it should be implemented, after giving
due consideration to any expert opinions and other evidence adduced at that
time.
A-1966-17T2
14
We leave the conduct of the remand hearing to the judge's sound
discretion, including the extent and nature of any testimony he or she deems
necessary. Certainly, given the passage of time and for other obvious reasons,
we are in no position to exercise original jurisdiction and order a particular
parenting time schedule, as defendant requests. The judge should give fair
consideration in advance of the remand hearing to the requests of the parties,
including, for example, defendant's request that John's GAL provide an updated
report or testify. We express no opinion about the current relevance of any
evidence offered through him or other witnesses defendant wishes to have testify
given the passage of time. 5
Lastly, although we earlier rejected defendant's appeal from the Family
Part's denial of his motion to vacate or modify the FRO, see P.V., slip op. at 7–
8, throughout these proceedings he sought relief from the FRO that implicitly
prohibited his presence at John's school. The judge's oral decision following the
plenary hearing never specifically addressed the issue, only mentioning the FRO
5
Defendant also argues it was error not to permit release of the in-camera
transcript of the judge's interview of John. Frankly, we do not understand the
point, since the November order permitted release of the CD and transcript of
the interview. If for some reason that never occurred, as defendant asserts in his
brief without attribution to anything in the record, we reiterate that defendant
should have access to them in advance of the remand hearing.
A-1966-17T2
15
in considering, as he was required to do, the statutory factors regarding custody.
See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 (requiring judge to consider "the parents' ability to . . .
communicate[,]" and "the history of domestic violence, if any"). The June order
does not grant or deny relief from any provision of the FRO.
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d) requires a showing of good cause for relief from an
FRO. To determine whether good cause has been shown, the court examines
the Carfagno factors. G.M. v. C.V., 453 N.J. Super. 1, 13 (App. Div. 2018)
(citing Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424, 434–35 (Ch. Div. 1995)).
The burden of demonstrating good cause is on defendant. Grover v. Terlaje, 379
N.J. Super. 400, 409 (App. Div. 2005). The same principles apply to a request
to modify specific provisions of an FRO. Ibid. We conclude this issue, too,
must be addressed on remand.
Because the hearing judge made fact and credibility determinations, w e
order that a different judge conduct the remand hearing. P.T., 325 N.J. Super.
at 221.
III.
In our prior opinion reversing the counsel fee award of $25,000 and
compelling its payment before scheduling a plenary hearing on custody, we
noted the award could not be justified pendente lite in anticipation of costs
A-1966-17T2
16
associated with the hearing under Rule 5:3-5(c) for several reasons. P.V.P., slip
op. at 21–22. We also noted it could not be justified as a sanction for defendant's
"bad faith[,]" a finding unsupported by the record. Id. at 23. Further, we
observed that the "award was not supported by an affidavit of services as
required by the Rules; nor did the court perform a lodestar analysis." Id. at 24.
We did not preclude a fee award for costs incurred by plaintiff in conducting the
plenary hearing; however, we noted "the court may do so only after an
appropriate review of the factors under Rule 5:3-5(c), including defendant's and
plaintiff's financial need and ability to pay." Id. at 24.
After reserving decision on plaintiff's request for counsel fees in his oral
decision supporting the June order, the judge awarded plaintiff counsel fees and
costs of $30,000 in the September order. The order itself includes the only
statement of the judge's reasoning.
The judge wrote that plaintiff's fee application met "all Rule requirements
and appear[ed] reasonable." He stated that defendant's opposition to the
application "in no way question[ed] the amount or reasonableness of the fee
application, but relie[d] solely on the theory of 'bad faith' on the part of the
[p]laintiff in opposing the [d]efendant's motions." The order provided that
plaintiff did not demonstrate bad faith, and plaintiff "reasonably disputed"
A-1966-17T2
17
defendant's modification motion, most of which the court denied. At the same
time, the order provided that "[i]n some ways[,]" defendant's motion was
justified in "looking to expand parenting time and transition to unsupervised
time[,] which [was] reflected in this [c]ourt's decision." Nonetheless, the judge
found that defendant's "repeated motion practice" and request for full custody,
when he only had supervised visitation at the time, "prevented any reasonable
amicable resolution of his demands." The judge further wrote, "[d]efendant did
not contest his ability to pay [the fee] or the claim of disparity in incomes."
Accordingly, the court awarded approximately 75% of plaintiff's request.
Defendant asserts that the judge failed to provide any detail regarding his
factual findings and legal conclusions, nor did he consider each parties' ability
to pay. Plaintiff's response is that the award was justified because of defendant's
bad faith.
"We will disturb a trial court's determination on counsel fees only on the
'rarest occasion,' and then only because of clear abuse of discretion." Strahan v.
Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 317 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Rendine v. Pantzer,
141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995)). "Rule 5:3-5(c) provides numerous factors the judge
should consider in determining a counsel fee application . . . ." Clarke v. Clarke,
359 N.J. Super. 562, 572 (App. Div. 2003). These factors include:
A-1966-17T2
18
(1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the
ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to
contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the
reasonableness and good faith of the positions
advanced by the parties; (4) the extent of the fees
incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously
awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to
counsel by each party; (7) the results obtained; (8) the
degree to which fees were incurred to enforce existing
orders or to compel discovery; and (9) any other factor
bearing on the fairness of an award.
[Ibid. (citing R. 5:3-5(c).]
We have no doubt that the September order attempted to address some of these
factors, albeit without specific reference to the Rule.
In any event, plaintiff's assertion that the fee award was justified because
the judge found defendant acted in bad faith is unsupported by the equivocal
statements contained within the order itself. Moreover, as we already noted,
defendant was actually successful in modifying his parenting time schedule as a
result of the hearing. The judge's finding that defendant did not contest the
parties' respective incomes did not constitute a reasoned consideration of "the
financial circumstances of the parties," or their respective abilities to pay their
own fees or contribute to the other's fees. Nor did the judge conduct any lodestar
analysis. J.E.V. v. K.V., 426 N.J. Super. 475, 493 (App. Div. 2012).
A-1966-17T2
19
We reverse the September order and remand the matter to the Family Part.
Although we have ordered that another judge conduct the remand hearing
regarding parenting time and modification of the FRO, we have confidence that
the judge is capable of deciding upon review of the existing record whether
plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable and just award for counsel fees and costs
incurred as a result of the plenary hearing.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings
in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-1966-17T2
20