Opinion ID: 2338715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Application of Entire Controversy Doctrine to This Case

Text: The tort suit instituted by plaintiffs involves the same core set of facts that undergirded the custody, adoption, and harassment actions. See DiTrolio, supra, 142 N.J. at 267-68, 662 A. 2d 494. In the custody action, Beverly detailed the numerous incidents of alleged abuse and stated: I am afraid for Melissa's safety with [Ambrose]. After 7 years, I state to this Court that [Ambrose] is unpredictable  one moment he seems fine, the next minute he snaps and becomes physically abusive. I feel I must protect my daughter from this. Indeed, it is my belief that the real motivation behind this custody action is [Ambrose's] desire to get back at me for ending the relationship. I am afraid that he will try to get back at me through my child.... Beverly asserted that Ambrose had abused her mentally and physically, and it was her obligation to protect the child from Ambrose. She argued that Ambrose should be denied custody and visitation because he had been violent and abusive throughout their relationship. These same allegations of abuse formed the basis for this tort claim. Plaintiffs' tort complaint sought monetary damages for the harm suffered as a result of Ambrose's alleged abuse. Plaintiff argues that in custody actions, the court focuses on the best interest of the child, Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 536, 122 A. 2d 593 (1956), whereas in a tort suit, the focus is on the defendant's actions. Further, in the custody action, the paramount consideration is the safety, happiness, physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. Ibid, see also, Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. 105, 119, 636 A. 2d 579 (App.Div. 1994). Nevertheless, the focus in custody actions is also on the parents to the extent that it pertains to their fitness as parents and the safety of the child. See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. In making a custody determination, among the factors the court must consider are: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child; ... 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 stability of the home environment offered; ... the fitness of the parents; ... [ N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 (emphasis added)] This list of factors makes it obvious that the alleged incidents of abuse were relevant to the custody action because, in custody actions, the court is required to consider the history of domestic violence and the safety of either parent from abuse by the other parent. See Terry, supra, 270 N.J. Super. at 119, 636 A. 2d 579 (holding in custody proceeding the court must reference the pertinent statutory criteria with some specificity). Additionally, as the Appellate Division correctly pointed out, Beverly's inclusion of the details of the abuse in her certification indicates that she understood their relevance to the custody action. Likewise, in Ambrose's custody complaint, he requested that a reasonable level of child support be set. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) provides several factors for the court to consider in determining the amount to be paid by a parent for child support. Among the factors listed are all sources of income and assets of each parent, [r]easonable debts and liabilities of each ... parent, and [a]ny other factors the court may deem relevant. Ibid.; see also Cleveland v. Cleveland, 249 N.J. Super. 96, 101, 592 A. 2d 20 (App.Div. 1991) (holding that it was proper to consider a personal injury award as income in determining level of child support). Obviously, a judgment in the tort claim would have been a relevant circumstance affecting Beverly's and Ambrose's financial status. Additionally, when the harassment complaint was consolidated with the custody action, the alleged torts became even more germane to the proceedings. Therefore, the two claims should have been joined in the first proceeding. That plaintiffs' tort action is precluded by application of the entire controversy doctrine is supported further by the trial court's finding that Beverly's decision not to file a tort complaint against defendant while the custody suit was pending was a matter of trial tactics. Beverly's certification in the custody matter belies her claim that she was not fully aware of the extent of the abuse until after the settlement, a mere four months before the filing of this action. Beverly chose to delay filing the tort suit until after defendant voluntarily relinquished his rights to Melissa, so as not to upset the apple cart. This we cannot sanction. To do so would be utterly destructive to the goals of the entire controversy doctrine. Ajamian, supra, 14 N.J. at 488-89, 103 A. 2d 9.