Title: Ronald A. MacKinnon v. Erika MacKinnon

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 114 September Term 2006 RONALD A. MACKINNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIKA MACKINNON, Defendant-Respondent. Argued May 1, 2007 Decided June 11, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Michele E. D Onofrio argued the cause for appellant (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, attorneys; Krista L. Haley, on the briefs). Christina M. Reger argued the cause for respondent (Bazelon Less & Feldman, attorneys; Ms. Reger and A. Richard Feldman, on the brief). CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. After fifteen years of marriage, Erika MacKinnon, a Japanese citizen, and Ronald MacKinnon divorced. Claiming that she is isolated and unhappy in the United States, Mrs. MacKinnon requested permission, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, to return to her home country with the couple s minor daughter Justine. The trial court granted the request, finding that Mrs. MacKinnon had a good-faith reason for the move and that relocation would serve the daughter s best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed. In this appeal, we must determine whether the standard for removal of minor children of divorce, established in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), applies when a custodial parent seeks to relocate a child to a foreign nation. Because the Baures factors are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the intricacies of international removal and because that standard promotes the best interests of the child, we hold that Baures applies to the international removal context. In doing so, we affirm the trial court s application of those factors to the present circumstances and its decision to grant the removal request. A. [Id. at 116-17.] We cautioned that not all factors will be relevant and of equal weight in every case. Id. at 117. Further, courts must remain cognizant of the underlying precepts that the custodial parent seeking removal must have a good-faith motive and that the move must not be inimical to the child s best interests. Id. at 122. In particular, the Appellate Division found that the danger of retention of a child in a country where prospects of retrieving the child and extraditing the wrongful parent are difficult, if not impossible, is a major factor for a court to weigh. Ibid. Nevertheless, the panel concluded that a bright-line rule prohibiting visitation to a country not a signatory to the Hague Convention would unnecessarily penalize a law-abiding parent and could conflict with a child s best interest. Id. at 155. Although Abouzahr did not address the effects of international removal on the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent, we nonetheless endorse its consideration of all factors affecting cross-border disputes. In addition to reviewing the variety of concerns affecting the international removal of a minor child of divorce, trial courts must consider the question of the enforceability of visitation and other court orders in the international removal context. Although a foreign nation s Hague Convention status is a pertinent factor, it is by no means dispositive. In future proceedings, when a parent raises concerns regarding enforceability, the trial court should pursue alternative solutions to such problems by, for example, encouraging the parties to obtain appropriate orders in the foreign nations or enter into contractual agreements, enforceable overseas, governing visitation arrangements. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-114 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court RONALD A. MACKINNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIKA MACKINNON, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED June 11, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Chief Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY