SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2552-15T2

C.R.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.A.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and 

R.C., 

Defendant.

____________________________

Submitted March 28, 2017 – Decided May 4, 2017

Before Judges Gilson and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Warren County, 

Docket No. FD-21-0242-16.

Scholl, Whittlesey & Gruenberg, L.L.C., 

attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. 

Whittlesey, on the brief). 

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2552-15T2

Defendant, who is the mother, appeals from a January 15, 2016 

order that provided she was to share joint legal custody of her 

teenage daughter with the father and defendant's adult daughter. 

The order also restricted the mother's parenting time and stated 

that the court would review the mother's parenting time in three 

months. Because the order is interlocutory and defendant failed 

to seek leave to appeal as required by Rule 2:2-4, we dismiss this 

appeal without prejudice to defendant's right to file a motion to 

modify the January 15, 2016 order.

I.

This appeal involves a dispute over the custody of a 

seventeen-year-old young woman, E.C. (Ellen)1, who was born in 

December 1999. Ellen is the biological daughter of defendant D.A. 

(Debbie) and defendant R.C. (Ralph). Plaintiff C.R. (Cathy) is 

an adult daughter of Debbie and Ellen's half-sister.

Debbie and Ralph are separated and before August 2015, Ellen 

lived with Debbie. While not established by expert testimony, 

Ellen apparently has emotional and mental health issues. She has 

been diagnosed as bipolar and suffers from depression. She also 

 

1 To protect privacy interests, the parties will be identified by 

their initials and for ease of reading, we will use fictitious 

names.
3 A-2552-15T2

has experienced suicidal ideology and she has been under a 

psychiatrist's care since 2012.

The relationship between Ellen and Debbie has been 

contentious. Ellen has informed her mother that she is bisexual. 

Debbie, however, has not accepted Ellen's sexual orientation and 

Debbie and Ellen have argued over that issue. 

In August 2015, Ellen, with the apparent consent of Debbie, 

went to live with her half-sister Cathy. Cathy lives with her

husband and their daughter.2 Approximately one month later, on 

September 22, 2015, Cathy filed a complaint in the Family Part 

seeking custody of Ellen and child support from Debbie and Ralph.

The Family Part conducted a one-day evidentiary hearing on 

January 5, 2016. At that hearing, an attorney represented Cathy, 

while Debbie and Ralph represented themselves. All parties 

testified. As part of the proceedings, the Family Part judge also 

interviewed Ellen.

Ralph agreed to share legal custody of Ellen with Debbie and 

Cathy. Ralph also agreed that Cathy could have physical custody 

of Ellen. Debbie, however, contested the change of custody. 

Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, 

the Family Part judge made findings of fact and conclusions of 

 

2 Cathy's husband was initially a plaintiff in this matter, but he 

withdrew as a party.
4 A-2552-15T2

law, which were set forth on the record on January 12, 2016. 

Thereafter, on January 15, 2016, the Family Part issued two orders, 

one addressing Debbie and the other addressing Ralph.

In terms of fact-findings, the judge found that Ellen had 

been in therapy since 2012 and she had been diagnosed with bipolar 

disorder and depression. The judge also found that Ellen and 

Debbie had a contentious relationship, which upset Ellen and 

sometimes caused Ellen to have suicidal ideology. In that regard, 

the court found that Debbie had not accepted Ellen's sexual 

orientation, was not supportive of Ellen, and often engaged in 

communications that upset Ellen. In contrast, the judge found 

that Ellen had a good relationship with Cathy and that Cathy 

provided constructive support and discipline for Ellen.

In addressing the custody dispute, the court looked to the 

standard established by our Supreme Court in Watkins v. Nelson, 

163 N.J. 235 (2000). In Watkins, the Supreme Court established a 

two-step analysis to address a custody dispute involving a third 

party. Id. at 253-54. The Family Part judge here, however, 

reasoned that there was a need to modify the Watkins standard 

because Cathy was a family member, but not a psychological parent. 

Accordingly, the judge used a standard that she described as the 

"best interest of the child by clear and convincing evidence." 

Applying that standard, the court then found that Cathy had shown 
5 A-2552-15T2

by clear and convincing evidence that it was in Ellen's best 

interest for her to live with Cathy.

Significantly, however, the orders entered by the court did 

not directly address the physical custody of Ellen. Instead, the 

orders directed that: (1) Debbie, Ralph, and Cathy are to share 

joint legal custody of Ellen; (2) Cathy will have superior "say" 

concerning Ellen's healthcare, including Ellen's mental health; 

(3) if Debbie wants parenting time with Ellen, she had to attend 

individual counseling followed by joint counseling with Ellen; and 

(4) Debbie and Ralph were to pay Cathy child support for Ellen.

The orders also stated that the court would hold a further 

hearing on April 12, 2016, to establish a "reunification parenting 

plan" for Debbie. Before that further hearing took place, on 

February 26, 2016, Debbie filed a notice of appeal from the January

15, 2016 order that addressed her. 

On this appeal, Debbie argues that the Family Part infringed 

her constitutionally protected parental rights by not properly 

evaluating whether Cathy had the right to custody of the minor 

child. Cathy did not file a brief on this appeal.

II.

Only final orders or judgments can be appealed as of right. 

R. 2:2-3(a). In general, to be a final judgment, an order must 

dispose of all claims against all parties. "To have the finality 
6 A-2552-15T2

required to create appellate jurisdiction, an order must not only 

completely dispose of all pleaded claims as to all parties, but 

all its dispositions must also be final." Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 

403 N.J. Super. 443, 460 (App. Div. 2008) (citing Lawler v. Isaac, 

249 N.J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 1991)). If the order is not 

final, it is interlocutory and appellate review is available only 

by leave granted under Rule 2:4-4 and Rule 2:5-6. 

Furthermore, interlocutory review is "limited to those 

exceptional cases warranting appellate intervention [and] the sole 

discretion to permit an interlocutory appeal has been lodged with 

the appellate courts." Id. at 458. "Interlocutory review is 

'highly discretionary' and is to be 'exercised only sparingly,' 

because of the strong policy 'that favors an uninterrupted 

proceeding at the trial level with a single and complete 

review[.]'" Id. at 461 (citations omitted). 

Here, the order defendant seeks to appeal is interlocutory. 

The order expressly contemplates additional proceedings before the 

Family Part. Critically, the January 15, 2016 order does not 

expressly address the physical custody of Ellen. Appeals are 

taken from orders, not the reasons given for the order. Do-Wop 

Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001). 

Moreover, Debbie seeks to contend that the Family Part 

terminated her parental rights. She also argues that Cathy, as 
7 A-2552-15T2

the half-sister, did not have standing to seek custody of Ellen. 

The January 15, 2016 order, however, did not state that Debbie's 

parental rights were terminated. Indeed, when the court set forth 

its reasons on the record, the court never stated that Debbie's 

parental rights were terminated. Instead, the court found that 

it was in Ellen's best interest to live with Cathy. The court 

then entered an order that gave Cathy joint legal custody of Ellen 

with Debbie and Ralph.

We note that the question of the interlocutory nature of the 

order was raised with the parties by the Appellate Division Clerk's 

Office after this appeal was filed. Counsel for Debbie responded 

with a letter contending that the order was a final decision 

subject to appeal. At that time, Cathy was represented by an 

attorney, and that attorney responded by contending that the order 

was interlocutory. We entered no order in response to those 

letters. Instead, a briefing schedule was issued and Debbie filed 

a brief and Cathy did not.

Because the January 15, 2016 order did not resolve all issues 

as to all parties, the order is interlocutory. Debbie did not 

seek or obtain leave to appeal and, thus, this appeal is dismissed 

as interlocutory. The issue Debbie seeks to address - - the 

alleged termination of her parental rights - - was not expressly 

addressed in the January 15, 2016 order. Thus, this dismissal is 
8 A-2552-15T2

without prejudice to Debbie's right to file a motion in the Family 

Part to address custody.

Appeal dismissed.