NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1326-17T2

J.G.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 

J.H.,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________

Argued December 5, 2018 – Decided 

Before Judges Koblitz, Ostrer and Mayer.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Warren County, 

Docket No. FD-21-0329-14.

Grace E. Kelly argued the cause for appellant (Legal 

Services of Northwest Jersey, attorneys; Grace E. 

Kelly, on the brief). 

Respondent has not filed a brief. 

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

KOBLITZ, P.J.A.D.

Because the welfare of children is paramount whether the parents are 

married, divorced or never-married, we reverse and remand for a plenary hearing 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

January 2, 2019

APPELLATE DIVISION

January 2, 2019
2

A-1326-17T2

in this non-dissolution, FD, child custody matter. The mother, J.G. (Jane)1

appeals from a custody and parenting time order entered after the judge denied 

discovery, denied Jane's lawyer the right to participate in the proceedings, did 

not afford cross-examination or an opportunity to call witnesses and decided the 

issues without fact-finding or a consideration of the statutory custody factors, 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c). 

When J.H. (John) was born in 2012, his parents were not married. Jane is 

a school teacher and J.H. (Joseph) an aid for special needs students. In 2014, an 

FD order reflected the parents' consent to joint legal custody of their son, 

primary residential custody with Jane, and generous parenting time for Joseph.

The following year, the consent order was vacated because the parents attempted 

to reconcile. John continued to reside primarily with Jane, and the parents

agreed on a flexible shared-parenting-time schedule. 

The relationship between the parties eventually deteriorated, and Jane 

pursued a new relationship. She is now pregnant. Joseph alleges that on October 

3, 2017, John was left alone with Jane's fiancé, who Joseph claims is a "well 

known drug user" and "convicted felon with multiple prison sentences." 

 

1 We use initials and pseudonyms to preserve the confidentiality of the family. 

R. 1:38-3(d)(13). 
3

A-1326-17T2

The next day, Joseph filed an order to show cause under the original FD 

docket number, seeking sole custody of John. As part of Joseph's emergent 

application, he alleged having received many reports of misbehavior by Jane 

and her fiancé, including drug usage and threatening behavior.

The court denied Joseph's order to show cause because Joseph failed to 

demonstrate irreparable or "actual imminent threat of harm to [John]." The court 

stated it "cannot grant emergent custody based on . . . uncorroborated statements 

. . . limited evidence . . . and such speculative harm." Nonetheless, it awarded 

Joseph temporary sole physical custody of John pending resolution of the 

application because "[t]here appears to be potential for violence in [Jane]'s 

home, which could spill over and adversely affect a four-year-old child."2 The 

order provided that Jane could arrange for parenting time "supervised by the 

maternal grandmother" at a location outside of Jane's home.

Jane filed an order to show cause, alleging that John was suffering harm 

by his abrupt separation from her. The judge denied Jane's order to show cause 

as non-emergent, stating that "[w]hile [Jane] makes concerning certifications 

about [Joseph], she has not alleged with specificity any imminent harm." 

 

2

 If "reasonable cause" regarding the child's safety arose, the judge should have 

contacted the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10.
4

A-1326-17T2

On October 24, 2017, Jane, her lawyer and Joseph appeared before another 

judge for the return on Joseph's initial order to show cause. The hearing judge 

placed both parties under oath and proceeded to go back and forth questioning 

them in an attempt to establish the facts. The parties contradicted each other 

about most of the important facts affecting John's welfare.

Jane's counsel, when afforded an opportunity to speak, requested the 

matter be placed on the complex track, but was rebuffed:

[COUNSEL]: [I]n order for there to be a change of 

custody we would ask that this case be put on the 

complex track to allow for discovery --

THE COURT: It's a -- it's an FD matter.

[COUNSEL]: But if the court --

THE COURT: It's not a divorce. 

[COUNSEL]: -- if the court were to put it on, it has the 

option to put it on the complex track according to [Rule

5:5-7(c)3], then discovery would be available as well as 

 

3 Rule 5:5-7(c) provides:

Non-Dissolution Actions. While non-dissolution 

actions are presumed to be summary and non-complex, 

at the first hearing following the filing of a nondissolution application, the court, on oral application by 

a party or an attorney for a party, shall determine 

whether the case should be placed on a complex track.

The court, in its discretion, also may make such a 
5

A-1326-17T2

depositions because I mean a lot of these accusations . 

. . .

After denying the request to place the matter on the complex track, the 

hearing judge responded to counsel's later attempt to speak on behalf of Jane by 

stating, "I'm asking [Jane,] not you." The judge asked the parties what 

arrangement they preferred, and when they could not agree, he set the parenting 

schedule. 

The judge ordered joint legal and physical custody, with Joseph having 

primary residential custody. John spent the night with his father Monday 

through Friday, Jane was afforded parenting time with John after school Monday 

through Thursday, and the parties were to alternate parenting time "every other 

weekend."4 The judge also prohibited Jane's fiancé from being alone with John. 

After Jane voiced concern about the disruption in her son's life caused by this 

 

determination without an application from the parties. 

The complex track shall be reserved for only 

exceptional cases that cannot be heard in a summary 

matter. The court may assign the case to the complex 

track based only on a specific finding that discovery, 

expert evaluations, extended trial time or another 

material complexity requires such an assignment.

4

 Contrary to the judge's verbal order, the written order provides that the "parties 

shall share weekends, with [Jane] having at least one overnight visit with [John] 

on the weekend." 
6

A-1326-17T2

change in primary residential custody, the motion judge said that John had 

"already been uprooted." No further reasons were provided.

I. Pre-Hearing Requirements

As with other custody matters, prior to a plenary hearing, the parties 

should have been sent to mediation, Rules 1:40-5 and 5:8-1, and, if they were 

unable to resolve the issues, they should have been required to submit a Custody 

and Parenting Time/Visitation Plan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(e), Rule 5:8-5(a)

and Luedtke v. Shobert (Luedtke), 342 N.J. Super. 202, 218 (App. Div. 2001). 

The required procedures for custody and parenting time cases are outlined in 

Administrative Directive #01-02, "Standards for Child Custody and Parenting 

Time Investigation Reports" (Apr. 2, 2002), and include use of alternate dispute 

resolution, followed by an investigation report when "conflicting information 

from the parties make it difficult to make a determination in the best interest of 

the child regarding custody/shared parenting time." A Social Investigation 

Report should be ordered where "conflicting information regarding which parent 

can serve the long term best interest of the child is presented before the court 

but the psychological fitness of both parties is not in question." 5 Ibid.

 

5

"Completion of the Best Interest Report may require the assistance of Family 

Court staff in a county other than the county where the orde[r] was entered." 
7

A-1326-17T2

Upon counsel's request to place the matter on the complex track, the judge 

denied the request because "it's an FD matter. It's not a divorce." "Whether the 

case is designated as complex or handled as a summary action, Family Part 

judges have broad discretion to permit, deny, or limit discovery in accordance 

with the circumstances of the individual case." Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 

24 (2016). For the judge to deny discovery without further explanation was 

improper. 

In sum, before a hearing took place, the parties should have been sent to 

an alternate dispute resolution process and directed to furnish a proposed 

parenting plan if they could not resolve custody. Discovery should have been 

allowed, absent cogent reasons for denial. Finally, an investigative report 

should have been prepared by court staff. The judge needed this information to 

make a considered decision.

II. Plenary Hearing

A thorough plenary hearing is necessary in contested custody matters

where the parents make materially conflicting representations of fact. K.A.F. v. 

D.L.M., 437 N.J. Super. 123, 137-38 (App. Div. 2014). In K.A.F. we said:

 

Non-Dissolution Operations Manual, Superior Court of New Jersey, Family 

Division, § 1601 (Dec. 12, 2007).
8

A-1326-17T2

A court, when presented with conflicting factual 

averments material to the issues before it, ordinarily 

may not resolve those issues without a plenary hearing. 

While we respect the family court's special expertise, a 

court may not make credibility determinations or 

resolve genuine factual issues based on conflicting 

affidavits. . . . Moreover, a plenary hearing is 

particularly important when the submissions show there 

is a genuine and substantial factual dispute regarding 

the welfare of children. 

[Ibid. (citation omitted).]

"[T]he matter of visitation[6]is so important, especially during the formative 

years of a child, that if a plenary hearing will better enable a court to fashion a 

plan of visitation more commensurate with a child's welfare . . . it should require 

it." Id. at 138 (quoting Wagner v. Wagner, 165 N.J. Super. 553, 555 (App. Div. 

1979)); see also Faucett v. Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108, 118-19 (App. Div. 

2009) (stressing the need for a plenary hearing even prior to a temporary 

modification of custody). 

The proceeding that took place did not constitute a plenary hearing. The 

motion judge asked the parents questions, going back and forth between them. 

He did not allow Jane's counsel to participate meaningfully in the proceedings. 

 

6 Visitation is now referred to as "parenting time." See Pascale v. Pascale, 

140 N.J. 583, 588 (1995). 
9

A-1326-17T2

The parents were not given an opportunity to exchange discovery, retain an 

expert witness, call witnesses or cross-examine each other. 

A parenting time "decision . . . made without an evidential basis, without 

examination and cross-examination of lay and expert witnesses, and without a 

statement of reasons is untenable in the extreme." Fusco v. Fusco, 186 N.J. 

Super. 321, 327 (App. Div. 1982).

There are obviously few judicial tasks which involve 

the application of greater sensitivity, delicacy and 

discretion than the adjudication of child custody 

disputes, which result in greater impact on the lives of 

those affected by the adjudication, and which require a 

higher degree of attention to the properly considered 

views of professionals in other disciplines. . . . That is 

also why the parties must be afforded every reasonable 

opportunity to introduce expert witnesses whose 

evaluation of the family situation may assist the judge 

in determining what is best for the children. 

[Fehnel v. Fehnel, 186 N.J. Super. 209, 215 (App. Div. 

1982).]

The judge must allow the parties cross-examination. N.B. v. S.K., 435 N.J. 

Super. 298, 308 n.12 (App. Div.2014) (finding error where the trial judge barred 

the plaintiff from cross-examining the defendant because "courts must be 

vigilant to ensure that parties' procedural due process rights are maintained"); 

Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 116, 124 (App. Div. 2005) (criticizing the 

trial court's "failure to afford defendant essential procedural safeguards 
10 A-1326-17T2

including the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and the right to call 

witnesses in his own defense" as well as the general "informality of the 

proceedings").

The motion judge engaged in questioning of both parties. Jane's counsel 

attempted to speak on her behalf and was repeatedly rebuffed. The motion judge 

said that he was "relaxing the rules of evidence" when Jane's counsel objected 

to Joseph's testimony regarding her fiancé's threatening Facebook posts. Jane's 

mother was not explored as a possible witness although she was present at the 

hearing, even though the parties disputed whether she should care for John in 

light of her health. 

Busy FD calendars and the summary nature of many FD applications 

might encourage the misperception that any dispute labeled FD rather than FM, 

or divorce, requires fewer judicial resources. Thoughtful consideration of the 

importance to any child of custody and parenting time decisions, however, 

dictates the necessity of looking past the docket designation to the nature of the 

dispute. No court had previously determined custody for this family, the parties 

no longer agreed that Jane should retain primary residential custody, and it was 

crucial that a fair process be used to ensure the best possible outcome for John.
11 A-1326-17T2

III. Fact-findings and Reasons Required

The motion judge also erred by failing to make fact-findings and apply 

those facts to the custody factors provided in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c). "When a court 

orders a custody arrangement that is not agreed to by both parents, it must 

identify on the record the specific factors that justify the arrangement." Bisbing 

v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309, 322 (2017) (citing N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f)). 

"The touchstone for all custody determinations has always been 'the best 

interest[s] of the child.'" Faucett, 411 N.J. Super. at 118 (alteration in original) 

(quoting Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317 (1997)). "Custody issues are 

resolved using a best interests analysis that gives weight to the factors set forth 

in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c)." Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, addressing "any proceeding involving the custody of a 

minor child," provides:

In making an award of custody, the court shall consider 

but not be limited to the following factors: the parents'

ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters 

relating to the child; the parents' willingness to accept 

custody and any history of unwillingness to allow 

parenting time not based on substantiated abuse; the 

interaction and relationship of the child with its parents 

and siblings; the history of domestic violence, if any; 

the safety of the child and the safety of either parent 

from physical abuse by the other parent; the preference 

of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to 

reason so as to form an intelligent decision; the needs 
12 A-1326-17T2

of the child; the stability of the home environment 

offered; the quality and continuity of the child's 

education; the fitness of the parents; the geographical 

proximity of the parents' homes; the extent and quality 

of the time spent with the child prior to or subsequent 

to the separation; the parents' employment 

responsibilities; and the age and number of the 

children. A parent shall not be deemed unfit unless the 

parents' conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the 

child.

[N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c).]

Both parties alleged facts that raised concerns about John's safety with the 

other parent. These facts were not substantiated beyond the parties' conflicting 

certifications and testimony, without cross-examination, before the judge. They 

alleged illegal drug use by the other parent, a break-in attempt at Jane's home, 

and Jane having been stalked and threatened. Many of John's allegations were 

based on what he had heard from others rather than his personal knowledge. 

The hearing judge made no mention, either on the record or in the written 

order, of the child's best interests or any of the factors in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c). John

had resided primarily with his mother for most of his life. After questioning

both parties, the judge said only: "Okay. Here's what I'm going to do," before 

setting forth a new parenting time arrangement, granting Joseph primary 

residential custody of the four-year-old boy. The only explanation the judge 

offered for his decision was that John had "already been uprooted," so this plan 
13 A-1326-17T2

would not cause further disruption to the young child. We remand to be assigned 

to a different judge, in an excess of caution, because this judge may have formed 

a view of the situation through these proceedings. R. 1:12-1(d).

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.