NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1468-19T2 DANIEL W. PAURO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RACHEL L. PAURO, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Argued on September 22, 2020 – Decided October 27, 2020 , 2020 Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. FM-01-0121-18. Nicholas C. Needle argued the cause for appellant (Conrad O'Brien PC, attorneys; Nicholas C. Needle and Robert N. Feltoon on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Defendant Rachel L. Pauro appeals that portion of the trial judge's order granting without prejudice plaintiff Daniel W. Pauro's cross-motion to restrain Rachel1 from "taking the [parties' two minor] children to [Daniel's] adoptive parents" and the subsequent denial of her motion for reconsideration of that order. Although our review of Family Part decisions is narrow as those judges are accorded "broad discretion because of their specialized knowledge and experience in matters involving parental relationships and the best interests of children," and we generally defer to those decisions "unless they are so wide of the mark that our intervention is required to avert an injustice," N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 427 (2012); see also N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231 N.J. 354, 365 (2017), "[w]e owe no special deference to . . . [a] judge's legal determinations," and, as here, "are compelled to reverse when the judge does not apply the governing legal standards," Slawinski v. Nicholas, 448 N.J. Super. 25, 32 (App. Div. 2016). When Rachel moved to change the parenting time schedule to which the 1 We use the parties' given names to avoid confusion because they have the same surnames. We mean no disrespect or familiarity by our practice. A-1468-19T2 2 parties agreed the year prior in a mediated agreement, 2 Daniel sought to restrain Rachel from bringing the children to their paternal grandparents "for any type of parenting time." In an oral decision rendered after a non-testimonial motion hearing, the trial judge observed that Daniel had "a problem with his adoptive parents. For whatever reasons he ha[d] issues with them, and that is something that obviously is very significant to him. But the children also have a relationship with that family, those parents and the adoptive, and the extended families at both sides." After expressing hope that the children would enjoy relationships with their relatives, the judge conceded she did not "know the full extent of how involved the children are with other family, cousins[,] and aunts and uncles and grandparents," and that it was "hard for [her] to discern based upon what[] [was then] right in front of [her] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals