SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3786-22 

K.R.,1

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

J.L.R., 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

________________________

Submitted May 6, 2024 – Decided May 13, 2024 

 

Before Judges Sabatino and Vinci. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket 

No. FM-15-0612-15. 

Wernik & Salvatore, attorneys for appellant (David 

Salvatore, of counsel and on the brief). 

Senoff & Enis, attorneys for respondent (Michael J.

Gunteski, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

1

 We use initials to protect the medical privacy and welfare of the parties' minor 

son who is the subject of this appeal. R. 1:38-3(d). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-3786-22

This is a child relocation and custody case in which we are guided by the 

"best interests of the child" test adopted by the Supreme Court in Bisbing v. 

Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017). After a fact-finding hearing with several 

witnesses, the Family Part judge denied the mother's opposed application to 

move the parties' eleven-year-old son with her from New Jersey to Florida. We 

affirm.

The parties married in 2010, separated in 2014, and divorced in 2015. 

They have one child together, a son who was born in December 2012. Since the 

time of the separation, plaintiff K.R., the child's mother, has had primary 

residential custody of the son. However, the father, defendant J.L.R.,

2

 has 

regularly enjoyed parenting time with the son every other weekend and on 

vacations, pursuant to the parties' divorce agreement. 

The son has lived in New Jersey his entire life. He resides with his mother 

at her parents' home in New Egypt and attends school there. The father lives in 

Neptune Township. He has been employed with the same firm as an 

environmental technician for about fourteen years. 

2

 All three of the child's initials are identical to those of the father. The child is 

referred to in the trial court's opinion as "J.R." To avoid confusion, we refer to 

the child as "the son," rather than by initials. 
3 A-3786-22

Both parties have remarried. The mother's present husband, who she

married in 2022, has two children from another relationship. They were ages 

twelve and six at the time of the trial court's decision. Those children live 

abroad, but they visit with their father about twice each year. 

The father has two children with his second wife, who he has known since 

2016. Those children, who were ages five and one-and-half at the time of the 

trial court's decision, live with the father and the stepmother in Neptune 

Township. Their home is large enough to accommodate the son and his two 

half-siblings.

The mother sought to relocate with the son to Florida because her current 

husband's long-time employer offered him a better paying position in Florida in 

2021, with a chance to take over the reins of the company in the future. He 

accepted the offer, and they bought a house together in Florida. The mother's 

plan is to move to Florida and find a job herself. Her parents are also planning 

to move to Florida and be nearby. 

The parties agree the son would prefer to remain in New Jersey and live, 

for the first time, at his father's house. The mother contends the son is becoming 

receptive to a possible move to Florida. If the son remained in New Jersey and 

moved in with his father, his stepmother would take the lead in getting him ready 
4 A-3786-22

for school, meals, and so on at the father’s house. The father is willing to assume 

primary residential custody if the mother moves to Florida. 

If he remained in New Jersey, the son would have to change school 

districts to Neptune. He has special needs (dyslexia) and an IEP. The trial judge 

found it unclear if the Neptune school district would be as effective as the son's 

present district in providing services. On the other hand, the judge also noted it 

is unclear if the Florida schools would provide the son with equally effective 

services, either. 

There are cousins in New Jersey on the father's side, with whom the son

often spends time. The son has no cousins in Florida. The stepfather's children 

are there during the summer for a few weeks and on school breaks. The judge 

found that if the son moved to Florida, his time there would not overlap much 

with the stepfather's children, because the mother's revised custody plan called 

for the son go to New Jersey during the summer and on school breaks. 

The judge declined in his discretion to interview the son about his 

preferences. Neither parent wants the son caught in the middle of a conflict. 

The parties fortunately have an amicable relationship, and there has been 

no domestic violence between them. Until the present relocation matter, they 

have not been litigating disputes with one another in the Family Part. 
5 A-3786-22

After a plenary hearing at which each of the parents testified, as well as 

the maternal grandmother and the mother's current husband, the Family Part 

judge found it is the best interests of the son to not relocate. The judge wrote a 

detailed opinion dated July 11, 2023, applying the Bisbing factors. He 

recognized that, no matter who prevailed in the case, the parents would be 1,200 

miles apart. The opinion reasonably discusses the evidence in a fair manner. 

On appeal, the mother argues the judge misapplied the factors. She 

contends the judge placed too much weight on the son's lifelong residence in 

New Jersey and his interactions with extended family in New Jersey. She also 

contends the judge did not give enough consideration to the fact that the father 

would depend greatly on his present wife to take care of the son's daily needs 

and the fact that the family unit the son has lived with up until now are all 

moving to Florida. 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 requires a parent seeking to relocate a child from New 

Jersey without the consent of the other parent to demonstrate "cause" for the 

relocation. The intent of N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 is "to preserve the rights of the 

noncustodial parent and the child to maintain and develop their familial 

relationship." Bisbing, 230 N.J. at 323 (quoting Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 

344, 350 (1988)). The "Court has observed[] [that] a court making the sensitive 
6 A-3786-22

determination of 'cause' must weigh 'the custodial parent's interest in freedom of 

movement as qualified by his or her custodial obligation, the State's interest in 

protecting the best interests of the child, and the competing interests of the 

noncustodial parent.'" Ibid. 

In its seminal opinion in Bisbing, the Court interpreted "cause" under 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 as requiring the petitioning parent to satisfy the "the best interests 

analysis . . . set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), supplemented by other factors as 

appropriate." 230 N.J. at 338 (citing N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c)). In adopting the best 

interest standard, the Bisbing Court specifically overruled the two-part removal 

test Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). 230 N.J. at 312-23. 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) details the following statutory factors for consideration 

by trial courts in making custody arrangements: 

[T]he 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 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 
7 A-3786-22

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. 

The Bisbing Court noted that "additional factors not set forth in the statute may 

also be considered in a given case." 230 N.J. at 335 (citing N.J.S.A. 9:2-4). For 

example, "the parent of primary residence may have important insights about 

the arrangement that will most effectively serve the child [and] [t]he parent of 

alternate residence may similarly offer significant information about the child." 

Ibid. Additionally, "[t]he views of other adults with close relationships with the 

child may also inform the court's decision." Ibid. (citing Emma v. Evans, 215 

N.J. 197, 216-23 (2013)). Trial courts may also consider "documentary 

evidence, interviews with the children at the court's discretion, and expert 

testimony." 230 N.J. at 335 (citations omitted). 

In reviewing determinations on appeal, we afford considerable deference 

to the discretion of Family Part judges. The Family Part's findings are binding 

on appeal, "when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare 

v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998); see also O'Connor v. O'Connor, 349 N.J. 

Super. 381 (App. Div. 2012). Such deference is particularly appropriate in cases 

where, as here, the evidence is largely testimonial in nature and hinges upon a 
8 A-3786-22

court's ability to make assessments of credibility and veracity based on its 

observation of testifying witnesses. Id. at 412. 

The trial court's application of the pertinent relocation and custody factors 

under Bisbing involved the exercise of discretion. "Discretionary 

determinations, supported by the record, are examined to discern whether an 

abuse of reasoned discretion has occurred." Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546,

564 (App. Div. 2017) (citing Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 547 (2006)). An abuse 

of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision "rested on an impermissible 

basis, considered irrelevant or inappropriate factors, failed to consider 

controlling legal principles[,] or made findings inconsistent with or unsupported 

by competent evidence." Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 434 (App. Div. 

2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

This court will not "disturb the 'factual findings and legal conclusions of 

the trial judge unless [it is] convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported 

by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence 

as to offend the interests of justice.'" S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417, 429 

(quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc., v. Invs. Ins. 

Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (alteration in original))). We review rulings 

on questions of law, however, de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. 
9 A-3786-22

of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

Applying these review principles to the substance of this appeal, we affirm 

the trial court's decision substantially for the sound reasons expressed in Judge 

David M. Fritch's thoughtful written decision. We reject the criticisms levied 

by the mother as unpersuasive. The judge carefully considered the evidence and 

applied the correct post-Bisbing legal standards. Although reasonable minds 

might differ about the outcome of this difficult dispute, it is abundantly clear 

that the judge acted within the zone of his considerable discretion. We discern 

no reason to set aside his ruling. 

Affirmed.