RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0061-18T1 C.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.P., Defendant-Respondent. __________________________ Submitted October 8, 2019 – Decided November 21, 2019 Before Judges Accurso and Gilson. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-1843-17. C.P., appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff, the former husband, appeals from a final judgment of divorce, entered on June 5, 2018, following a bench trial. Plaintiff also appeals from an August 10, 2018 order denying his motion for reconsideration. Having considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and law, we affirm. I. The parties were married in May 2005. At the time of their divorce, there were two surviving children: a daughter, born in August 2009; and a son, born in July 2012. A third child had been stillborn during the marriage. Plaintiff filed for divorce in May 2017. The matter was tried before Judge Thomas J. Walsh on June 4, 2018. Both parties testified at trial; plaintiff was represented by counsel and defendant represented herself. The following day, on June 5, 2018, Judge Walsh made his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which he placed on the record. Judge Walsh initially noted that the parties had presented limited evidence and, thus, he made his findings based on their testimony and the three ex hibits they had submitted into evidence. Judge Walsh also noted that he did not address certain issues, such as future college expenses, because the parties failed to testify about and present evidence concerning those issues. Plaintiff sought to annul the marriage, contending that defendant had committed fraud by not disclosing that she had come to the country using a false passport. Judge Walsh found that defendant had testified credibly that plaintiff A-0061-18T1 2 knew both before and during the marriage that she had come into the country using a false passport. The judge then found that there were no grounds for an annulment because plaintiff knew of defendant's immigration status before and during the marriage, when the parties worked together to "correct the immigration status." Instead, Judge Walsh found that there were grounds for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2(i). He therefore granted a divorce on that basis. The judge then addressed and made findings concerning custody, child support, alimony, and equitable distribution. With regard to custody, the judge reviewed the governing statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, and made findings on the factors identified in the statute based on the best interests of the children. See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4a. The judge ruled that the parties will share joint legal and physical custody of the children, with defendant being ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals