SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4353-15T1

CHRISTOPHER L. RAUCCI,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

JAMYE G. VALOTTA,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted August 22, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Manahan and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester 

County, Docket No. FD-08-0876-15.

Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group, LLC, 

attorneys for appellant/cross-respondent 

(Melissa O. Hoffman, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Puff & Cockerill, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent/cross-appellant (Barbara B. Moore, 

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jamye Valotta, the mother, appeals from a May 6, 

2016 order that addressed parenting time and child support issues. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 6, 2017
2 A-4353-15T1

Plaintiff Christopher Raucci, the father, cross-appeals from other 

aspects of that order. Having considered the contentions of the 

parties in light of our standard of review, we affirm.

The parties dated for approximately three years and they have 

one child, a son born in 2014. Assisted by legal counsel and 

mediation, the parties have resolved most of their parenting 

issues.

In March and April 2015, the parties entered into two consent 

orders, under which they agreed to share joint legal custody, to 

a parenting time plan, and child support, with plaintiff paying 

defendant $100 per week. Thereafter, the parties continued to 

discuss parenting issues and attempted to work out a more 

comprehensive custody agreement. Initially, their discussions 

were not successful and, in early 2016, both parties filed motions 

to address custody issues.

Ultimately, on May 5, 2016, the parties were successful in 

working out a custody agreement that resolved all but two issues. 

That agreement was memorialized in writing and was incorporated 

into a consent order filed on May 5, 2016 (May 2016 custody 

agreement). Under the May 2016 custody agreement, the parties 

agreed (1) to share joint legal custody of their son; (2) that 

"neither [p]arty shall be designated the [p]arent of [p]rimary 

[r]esidence at this time[;]" and (3) to a parenting time schedule. 
3 A-4353-15T1

The parties also resolved various other issues in the May 2016 

custody agreement.

The parenting time schedule covered a fourteen-day cycle, and 

states that plaintiff picks up the child on Thursday at 11:15 a.m. 

and returns the child on Friday at 12:30 p.m., plaintiff picks up 

the child on Monday at 11:15 a.m. and defendant picks up the child 

on Tuesday between 12:15 and 12:30 p.m., plaintiff then has the 

child for the weekend beginning Friday at 11:15 a.m. with defendant 

picking up the child on Monday between 12:15 and 12:30 p.m. The 

parties could not agree on the number of overnights that plaintiff 

should be credited, nor could they agree on child support. Thus, 

those two issues were presented to the court for resolution.

The court heard arguments on those two issues on May 5, 2016. 

The following day the court entered an order (1) finding that the 

parties shared a true 50/50 parenting time schedule; (2) finding 

that a deviation from the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines was 

appropriate; (3) denying both parties' requests for child support; 

and (4) directing the parties to share the cost of the child's 

healthcare, which was $21 per week.

Defendant appeals from the May 6, 2016 order and argues that 

the Family court erred in (1) finding that the parties had a 50/50 

parenting time schedule; (2) refusing to hold a plenary hearing 

on the designation of a parent of primary residential custody; (3) 
4 A-4353-15T1

crediting plaintiff with equal parenting time under the New Jersey 

Child Support Guidelines; and (4) denying defendant's request for 

child support. Plaintiff cross-appeals and argues that the Family 

Part erred in failing to require defendant to pay him child support 

based on his contention that he was exercising eight out of 

fourteen overnights with the child.

Having considered both parties' arguments in light of the 

record and law, we are not persuaded by any of the arguments and 

we affirm the May 6, 2016 order.

Our scope of review of a Family Part decision is limited. We 

review an application to modify a child support obligation for 

abuse of discretion. See Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 594 

(1995) (explaining, "trial courts have discretion in determining 

child support"). Generally, we will not disturb the Family Part's 

decision on support obligations "unless it is manifestly 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other 

evidence, or the result of whim or caprice." Jacoby v. Jacoby, 

427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Foust v. Glaser, 

340 N.J. Super. 312, 316 (App. Div. 2001)).

While articulated in different ways, both defendant and 

plaintiff really make one principal argument. They contend that 

the Family Part erred in determining that the parties had a 50/50 

parenting time schedule. The parties worked out and agreed to the 
5 A-4353-15T1

actual schedule. The question presented to the family judge was 

how many overnights plaintiff should be credited with during the 

fourteen-day cycle. Plaintiff's contention that he is exercising 

eight out of fourteen overnights is based on a highly technical 

reading of the Child Support Guidelines. Specifically, he contends 

that because of the pickup and drop off times, he has the child 

for more than twenty-four hours and, thus, he should be given 

credit for two overnights when he picks up the child before 12 

noon and the child is returned after 12 noon the following day. 

The family judge acted well within his discretion in rejecting 

that argument. At the same time, the family judge had the 

discretion to consider the parties contentions and to give 

plaintiff some credit for the extra time spent with the child. 

Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the family 

judge's decision to treat the parenting time arrangement as a 

50/50 arrangement. 

We also discern no abuse of discretion in the family judge's 

decision to deny both parties' request for child support. The 

parties had stipulated that plaintiff's annual income was $65,000 

and defendant's annual income was $49,920. Having determined that 

the parents shared essentially equal parenting time, and given the 

parties' relatively close annual incomes, the court acted within 

its discretion in deciding not to adjust the child support for 
6 A-4353-15T1

controlled expenses, as allowed in Wunsch-Deffler v. Deffler, 406 

N.J. Super. 505 (Ch. Div. 2009). 

We also reject defendant's argument that a plenary hearing 

was necessary. In the May 2016 custody agreement, the parties 

expressly agreed that, at this time, neither of them would be 

designated the parent of primary residential custody. Thus, there 

was no need for a plenary hearing on that issue. With regard to 

the number of overnights, as we have already noted, the parties 

themselves worked out the specific parenting time schedule. 

Accordingly, there was no need for the court to hold a plenary 

fact-finding hearing. Instead, the court had to exercise its 

discretion in evaluating the parties' agreement and determining 

the number of overnights to credit to each party.

In affirming the May 6, 2016 order, we note that the order 

is a temporary order. At this time, the child is not attending 

school. That will change. Accordingly, both parties recognize 

that they will need to adjust the current parenting-time schedule

when the child begins attending school. Indeed, the May 2016 

custody agreement expressly acknowledges that there will be a 

future adjustment. Hopefully, the parties will be able to work 

that issue out through discussions in the best interest of the 

child. Such a resolution, whether reached through discussions, 

mediation, or court order, will probably require some adjustments 
7 A-4353-15T1

in the overnight parenting time schedule and may well result in 

one of the parents being designated as the parent of primary 

residential custody.

Affirmed.