NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1493-20 M.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.A., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued May 24, 2021 – Decided June 30, 2021 Before Judges Messano, Hoffman, and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. FM-01-0537-18. Phyllis Widman argued the cause for appellant. Steven P. Scheffler argued the cause for respondent (Reynolds & Scheffler, LLC, attorneys; Kendyll G. Clayton, on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant A.A. appeals a January 21, 2021 Family Part order entered following a bench trial that appointed plaintiff M.A. as the limited medical guardian of vaccinations for their daughter. We affirm the order, finding substantial credible evidence in the record to support it. I. A. Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2005. They have one child — A.A. (Adele)1 who was born in July 2013. The parties divorced in February 2018. As part of their divorce, they entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA). Under the MSA, the parties share joint legal and physical custody of Adele. Paragraph 5.1 of the MSA provides: 5.1. It is the parties' intention to share joint physical and legal custody of their daughter, [Adele], without the designation of a parent of primary residence. The parties considered their ability to communicate and share all the needs of [Adele], and further agree that their daughter's best interest is paramount. . . . [T]he parties shall immediately notify the other in the event of an emergency situation involving [Adele] and agree to provide the other with emergency telephone numbers. 1 We use initials and a pseudonym to maintain the confidentiality of the child. R. 1:38-3(d). A-1493-20 2 [(emphasis added).] Under paragraph 5.2, plaintiff and defendant both agree they "shall conduct themselves in a manner that shall be best for the interest, welfare, and happiness of [Adele]." The MSA did not address the procedure for resolving disputes between plaintiff and defendant in the event of a disagreement about how to address a medical emergency involving Adele. It did not mention either parent's religious beliefs or how those might relate to Adele. The MSA also did not mention vaccinations for Adele. This was even though on June 26, 2015 — before they were separated in September 2015 — they submitted a letter to Adele's preschool that claimed a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. This letter provided: To Whom It May Concern: As parents, based on our personal religious beliefs, we object to the following vaccinations, including but not limited to, Dtap/DPT, HepB, Hib, Tetanus (TB), MMR, Polio, and Varicella (Chicken Pox), for our child, [Adele]. Our child's body is the Temple of God. Our family's religious beliefs prohibit the injection of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals