Court Opinion

ID: 9915762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 15:06:11.584052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:25.669324
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0484-22

LAURA PERRY BENCIVENGA,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BARRETT D. BENCIVENGA,

     Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________

                   Argued December 6, 2023 – Decided January 8, 2024

                   Before Judges Firko and Susswein.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
                   No. FM-07-2207-16.

                   Jacqueline M. Printz argued the cause for appellant
                   (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP, attorneys;
                   Jacqueline M. Printz, of counsel and on the briefs;
                   Dennis F. Feeney, on the briefs).

                   Betsy W. Bresnick argued the cause for respondent
                   (Skoloff & Wolfe, PC, attorneys; Betsy W. Bresnick
                   and Paul Salvatoriello, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
        In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Laura Perry

Bencivenga appeals from an October 7, 2022 Family Part order denying her

motion to deem the parties' twenty-three-year-old child, R.B.1 unemancipated

based on her medical, mental, and emotional health issues. Plaintiff also appeals

from the denial of her motion to modify the parties' marital settlement agreement

(MSA) to require defendant Barrett D. Bencivenga to pay child support directly

to plaintiff under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a), or alternatively to require both parties

to provide financial maintenance for R.B. pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-

56.67(f)(2) and (3).

        On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in denying the applications

without     addressing    R.B.'s   recent       sixty-seven-page   neuropsychological

evaluation, denying both parties' requests for oral argument without providing a

reason in contravention of Rule 5:5-4(a)(1), and not conducting a plenary

hearing.     We agree with plaintiff's contentions that a plenary hearing is

necessary, and therefore reverse and remand this application to the Family Part

for a plenary hearing.

1
    We use initials to protect the identity and confidentiality of the child.
                                                                                A-0484-22
                                            2
                                       I.

      The parties were married in 1990 and have two children. Caroline was

born of the marriage and is emancipated. R.B., now aged twenty-four, was

adopted when she was eighteen months old. R.B. has been treated for emotional

and mental health issues since she was three years old. She has been diagnosed

with static encephalopathy, generalized anxiety disorder, oppositional defiant

disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, mood disorder, borderline personality

disorder, and panic disorder. By the age of eleven, R.B. had three inpatient

psychiatric hospitalizations due to suicidal ideation.      She was placed in

residential schools from ages eleven to fourteen, and in therapeutic schools from

ages fourteen to eighteen.

      A final judgment of divorce incorporated the parties' MSA, which was

entered on April 27, 2017. R.B. was eighteen years old at the time and a senior

in high school. Paragraph 4.1 of the MSA states:

            It is agreed between the parties that [R.B.] presently
            plans to enlist in the Navy. If she does so, she will be
            deemed emancipated. If [R.B.]'s plans change and
            she does not join the Navy, then and in that event,
            the parties shall confer to determine her status, what
            her plans are, and whether there is a child support
            obligation. If there is any child support obligation or
            other expense including, but not limited to education,
            those expenses shall be divided evenly between the
            parties.

                                                                           A-0484-22
                                       3
             [(Emphasis added.)]

      Paragraph 10.1 of the MSA, pertaining to life insurance, provides:

             Should [R.B.]'s plans change and should she be
             deemed unemancipated for any reason, including
             pursuing post[-]high school education, then the
             obligation of the parties to maintain life insurance and
             health insurance for [R.B.] shall be revisited and
             resolved.

             [(Emphasis added.)]

      Paragraph 6.1 of the MSA addresses emancipation and provides in

pertinent part:

             The children shall be deemed emancipated upon the
             first of the following events to take place, . . .

             (d) The Child's twenty-third (23rd) birthday; . . .

             (f) Permanent residence away from the custodial
             parents. A residence at a boarding school, camp or
             college shall not be deemed a residence away from
             Laura's or Barrett's residence sufficient to constitute
             emancipation.

      R.B. graduated from high school and planned on entering the Navy but

was denied entrance and could not enlist because she failed a drug screening

test. After R.B. was rejected by the Navy, the parties agreed there was no child

support obligation for her, and they allowed R.B. to make her own decisions,

including living where she wanted. R.B. was sexually assaulted when she was

                                                                           A-0484-22
                                         4
eighteen years old.    From that time to the present, she has experienced

homelessness, sleeping in her car, or at friends' homes.

      In November 2019, then twenty-year-old R.B. underwent a court-ordered

inpatient psychiatric hospitalization due to suicidal ideation and an "active

suicide plan."   After she was released, she received outpatient psychiatric

treatment from November 2019 to March 2020. Since March 2020, R.B. has

received treatment from Dr. David Holbrook, a psychiatrist, who provides

psychopharmacology and psychotherapy services. On August 14, 2020, R.B.

was approved for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits. As of July 20 22,

R.B. receives $872.25 per month because she is considered "in transition" due

to her lack of a permanent residence. Other than SSD benefits and medical and

dental insurance R.B. receives from defendant's employment, plaintiff pays all

of R.B.'s expenses.

      R.B. has not held a steady job.        On June 20, 2022, Dr. Holbrook

summarized R.B.'s mental health issues and opined:

            [R.B.] is clearly incapable of managing most of her
            own affairs and has been and continues to be incapable
            of maintaining employment due to her extreme
            impulsivity, irritability, and anxiety. This is thoroughly
            demonstrated by her history to date. Her prognosis is
            guarded. I do believe she has the potential for
            improvement over time with supportive psychotherapy.

                                                                         A-0484-22
                                        5
            Improvement will almost certainly be slow rather than
            rapid.

            [(Emphasis added.)]

      Plaintiff's relationship with R.B. has been estranged. On June 24, 2022,

R.B. reported to neuropsychologist Dr. Jonathan H. Mack that she "has been

staying at a friend's house," "was sleeping in her car," and intended to live with

her mother, but "she tends to fight" and when R.B. fights back, she's the

"asshole" and got "kicked out" of plaintiff's home. R.B. told Dr. Mack that she

couldn't handle plaintiff's "mental bull****."

      Since the divorce, plaintiff used marital funds to pay for R.B.'s expenses

that had been earmarked for Carolyn's college expenses. After those funds were

depleted, plaintiff sought financial assistance from defendant. In a June 29,

2022 email to defendant, plaintiff stated:

            I need to have a formal agreement that states regardless
            of [R.B.]'s age, you will continue to provide support as
            long as the conditions we agree to are met . . .
            [including] agreement to any behavioral plans/rules we
            put in place when she is living [in] a place we are
            paying for.

            I also want to "stop the clock" with her pending
            [twenty-third] birthday as a condition of emancipation.

      The parties did not reach a consensus on this issue. Consequently, on July

12, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an adjudication that R.B. is not

                                                                            A-0484-22
                                        6
emancipated; to compel defendant to pay child support directly to plaintiff under

N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a); to require defendant to contribute towards R.B.'s

expenses; to apportion R.B.'s expenses between the parties based on their

financial circumstances; to require defendant to file an updated case information

statement (CIS); and to enforce § 10.1 of the MSA and compel defendant to

provide proof of life insurance he is supposed to maintain for R.B.

Alternatively, plaintiff sought contribution from defendant for financial

maintenance for R.B., pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67(f)(2) and (3); to

establish a special needs trust for R.B.; and for counsel fees and costs.

      On September 22, 2022, defendant filed a notice of cross-motion seeking

to deny plaintiff's motion and declare R.B. emancipated effective as of the date

she graduated from high school in June 2017. On September 27, 2022, plaintiff's

counsel requested an adjournment of the pending motions because she was

awaiting an updated report from Dr. Mack, who evaluated R.B. on June 24,

2022. The judge denied the adjournment request and indicated the motions

would be decided on the papers.

      Dr. Mack's report was completed on September 29, 2022, and submitted

along with plaintiff's reply certification to the judge and adversary that same

day. In his report, Dr. Mack stated:

                                                                            A-0484-22
                                        7
           It is this examiner's opinion that [R.B.] has essentially,
           somewhat, fallen through the cracks of the system due
           to her being bright enough that she should be able to
           function on an intellectual basis but with her
           functioning sabotaged by her ongoing irritative brain
           lesions diagnosed beginning at the age of [ten] or
           [eleven], and even prior, causing the totality of the
           above-cited diagnostic conditions that render her,
           essentially, unable to function as an adult at this time.
           At some point, if the situation with [R.B.] does not
           improve, or deteriorates, a guardianship assessment
           may be necessary to determine if she meets full criteria
           for an incapacitated person. At this point, however, it
           is clearly evidenced that she is not able to function
           without ongoing and extreme parental support due to
           the fact that [R.B.] is not able to reach independent
           status due to her preexisting disabilities that have
           actually worsened over time.

Dr. Mack concluded:

           Based on the totality of the evidence available to me, it
           is this examiner's opinion that [R.B.] . . . is not able to
           function independently across the conceptual, social,
           and practical domains of adaptive behavior as a
           consequence of all the above-cited diagnoses. [R.B.]
           has deteriorated neuropsychologically from her
           performance in 2013. She was judged to be a danger to
           herself in 2019. She has been intermittently homeless.
           As much as she says she wants to [be] independent, she
           is unable to be based on her inability to support herself,
           her emotional and behavior instability, her poor
           response to lifelong treatment, and consequently, is not
           out of the sphere of influence of her parents due to
           incapacity in terms of judgement [sic], a behavioral
           dyscontrol, inability to sustain and hold a job, extreme
           emotional lability, emotional instability, a markedly
           impaired frustration tolerance, with failure at the age of

                                                                         A-0484-22
                                       8
            [twenty-three] to develop stable peer relationships,
            inability to be independent from a financial perspective
            due to inability to work, and diagnoses causing [R.B.]
            to continue to need ongoing parental support and
            supervision due to the above-cited diagnostic
            conditions.

      Dr. Mack diagnosed R.B. with other specified neurodevelopmental

disorder; language disorder; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; specific

learning disorder; personality change; frontal lobe and executive function

deficit; chronic pain disorder; insomnia disorder; borderline personality

disorder; major depressive disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder; panic

disorder; and cannabis use disorder.

      Since January 2021, plaintiff certified she incurred $200 to $500 per

month in additional expenses for R.B.        In plaintiff's CIS filed with her

application, she claimed R.B.'s estimated Schedule A, B, and C expenses are

$3,131 per month.

      On October 7, 2022, the judge decided the motions without conducting

oral argument as requested by the parties. 2 The judge denied plaintiff's motion

and granted defendant's cross-motion to emancipate R.B. In her statement of

reasons incorporated with the order, the judge noted R.B.` did not enlist in the

2
  The order entered on October 7, 2022, erroneously states the judge considered
the arguments of the parties.
                                                                          A-0484-22
                                       9
Navy after graduating from high school, and "neither parent has paid child

support since R.B.'s eighteenth . . . birthday." The judge found "since her

graduation from high school[,] R.B. has not permanently lived with either

parent." In her conclusion, the judge stated R.B. "is out of the parties' sphere of

influence and control" and "the fact . . . [p]laintiff chooses to pay for medical

expenses for the child does not obligate . . . [d]efendant to pay support." The

judge did not consider or reference Dr. Mack's report in her statement of reasons.

This appeal followed.

                                        II.

      We consider whether plaintiff is entitled to a plenary hearing on her

motion.    Plaintiff seeks a plenary hearing to determine whether R.B. is

emancipated or not, and if not, whether both parties should provide financial

maintenance for R.B. pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56-6(f)(2) and (3). Plaintiff

contends R.B. has struggled with mental and emotional health issues since her

early childhood; the MSA reflected the uncertainty of R.B.'s future

independence and uncertain emancipation; R.B.'s mental and emotional health

worsened after high school; her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Holbrook, provided the

report supporting her request for SSD benefits; Dr. Mack opined that R.B. is

                                                                             A-0484-22
                                       10
disabled and unable to function as an adult; and plaintiff and R.B. need financial

assistance from defendant to defray R.B.'s expenses.

      Although we apply an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's

determination regarding the need for a plenary hearing, Costa v. Costa, 440 N.J.

Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 2015), we conclude the judge was mistaken when denying

plaintiff's request for a plenary hearing. This record reflects disputed facts, and

expert opinions from Drs. Mack and Holbrook, such that the parties should have

been given a brief period for discovery and, absent an agreement, the

opportunity to present the issues for the court's resolution at a plenary hearing.

Conforti v. Guliadis, 128 N.J. 318, 322 (1992) (quoting Conforti v. Guliadis,

245 N.J. Super. 561, 565 (App. Div. 1991)); see also Tretola v. Tretola, 389 N.J.

Super. 15, 20 (App. Div. 2006) (reversing an emancipation order and requiring

a plenary hearing because the court failed to recognize material facts in dispute

and evidence beyond the motion papers necessary for resolution of the matter).

      A child's emancipation is "the conclusion of the fundamental dependent

relationship between parent and child . . . [,]" Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super.

11, 17 (App. Div. 2006), and is "the act by which a parent relinquishes the right

to custody and is relieved of the duty to support a child." Newburgh v. Arrigo,

88 N.J. 529, 543 (1982). The determination of whether a child is emancipat ed

                                                                             A-0484-22
                                       11
is fact sensitive. Ibid. Generally, the question of emancipation hinges upon

whether the child has moved "beyond the sphere of influence" of their parents

and has the ability and responsibility to support himself or herself as adults.

Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (App. Div. 1997) (quoting Bishop v.

Bishop, 287 N.J. Super. 593, 598 (Ch. Div. 1995)).

      Although our law presumes a child is emancipated upon attaining

majority, parents can bind themselves "by consensual agreement, voluntarily

and knowingly negotiated, to support a child past majority, and such agreement

is enforceable if fair and equitable." Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. at 18. When parents

do so, "the parental obligation is not measured by legal duties otherwise

imposed, but rather founded upon contractual and equitable principles." Ibid.

      In her statement of reasons, the judge here ignored two recent medical

reports about R.B.'s condition. 3 Plaintiff maintains Dr. Mack opined that R.B.'s

3
  Plaintiff's merits brief indicates this argument was not raised below. It is well
settled that we will not consider questions or issues not raised before the trial
court unless the questions raised pertain to the trial court's jurisdiction or
concern a matter of great public interest. State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20
(2009). But this "limitation on the scope of appellate review is not absolute."
Ibid. "[O]ur trial and appellate courts are empowered . . . to acknowledge and
address trial error if it is 'of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of
producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 1:7-5). "Further, our appellate
courts retain the inherent authority to 'notice plain error not brought to the
attention of the trial court[,]' provided it is 'in the interests of justice' to do so."
Robinson, 200 N.J. at 20 (quoting R. 2:10-2).
                                                                                 A-0484-22
                                         12
psychological profile is significant for very serious issues and that she functions,

at best, "at a level consistent with a [fifteen] year old." Dr. Mack noted that

R.B. "is judged to be a disabled person" who has "ongoing psychiatric and

neuropsychological impairments." She receives SSD benefits based on Dr.

Holbrook's medical opinion regarding her mental health issues. Based on our

review we conclude the parties' certifications triggered the need for a plenary

hearing because the certifications present a material factual dispute , and the

judge mistakenly exercised her discretion in not scheduling a plenary hearing.

Llewelyn v. Shewchuk, 440 N.J. Super. 207, 217 (App. Div. 2015).

      Absent an agreement to the contrary, when a child reaches the age of

majority, it is "prima facie, but not conclusive, proof of emancipation." Id. at

216 (citation omitted). "Once the presumption is established, the burden of

proof to rebut the statutory presumption of emancipation shifts to the party or

child seeking to continue the support obligation." Ibid.

      "Prior to addressing whether parental support is required for a child who

reaches majority, the pivotal question is whether the child remains

unemancipated." Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546, 573 (App. Div. 2017). A

child with disabilities will be considered unemancipated "if the child suffers

from a severe mental or physical incapacity that causes the child to be financially

                                                                              A-0484-22
                                        13
dependent on a parent." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The law was significantly changed

in 2016 when N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67 was enacted to create an automatic

termination of support when a child reaches the age of nineteen, subject to

continuation upon application by the residential parent or the child leading to a

court order. It became effective on February 1, 2017. Pursuant to the statute,

all child support terminates once a child turns twenty-three. The statute is

applicable even when the child has a mental or physical disability. N.J.S.A.

2A:17-56.67(e)(2). However, if a parent needs to obtain financial assistance for

a disabled adult child, the statute allows the court to order "another form of

financial maintenance for a child who has reached the age of [twenty-three]."

Ibid.

        The record contains competent proof that R.B. suffers from a myriad of

emotional, psychological, and psychiatric problems that prevented her from

entering the Navy or supporting herself. See Kruvant, 100 N.J. Super. at 118.

She is non-compliant with taking medications. Dr. Mack opined that R.B. is

unable to function "without ongoing and extreme parental support," and she is

"not out of the sphere of influence of her parents," due to her issues. Plaintiff

demonstrated     prima   facie   evidence   of   R.B.'s   incapacities   triggering

consideration and application of N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67 and 2A:34-23(a) through

                                                                             A-0484-22
                                       14
a plenary hearing. Moreover, paragraphs 4.1, 10.1, and 6.1 of the MSA reflect

the parties' concern about R.B.'s future because the door was left open to

"determine her status, what her plans are, and whether there is a child support

obligation" (paragraph 4.1), and "should she be deemed unemancipated for any

reason" (paragraph 10.1). The issue of the parties' intent relative to these

provisions they negotiated and agreed to in their MSA regarding R.B. warrants

testimony at a plenary hearing. Because we have determined that the issue of

R.B.'s emancipation warrants a plenary hearing, we need not address any

additional issues raised by plaintiff in her appeal. She may present those issues

if she chooses in the Family Part on remand.

      In summary, we reverse the October 7, 2022 order in its entirety and

remand all issues raised in plaintiff's motion and defendant's cross-motion to the

Family Part for consideration and determination following a plenary hearing.

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                            A-0484-22
                                       15