NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0353-15T2 M.E.M., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. D.H.N., JR., Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________ Argued Telephonically July 13, 2017 – Decided September 22, 2017 Before Judges Koblitz and Sumners. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1304-14. D.H.N., Jr., appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM After relocating sixty miles away from where his children resided and voluntarily retiring from his employment, defendant sought to modify a Judgment of Divorce (JOD) by obtaining primary residential custody of his two youngest daughters, an adjustment of parenting time, and termination of child support. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking primary residential custody of the two daughters and other relief. Defendant appeals subsequent orders of July 10, 2015, July 23, 2015, August 19, 2015,1 and September 8, 2015. The Family Part judge, in pertinent part, ordered: appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for the two youngest daughters; an adjustment of parenting time and drop-off location; defendant to pay the balance of the GAL's fee, plaintiff's outstanding shares of the 2013 income tax refund and the proceeds from the sale of the marital home, and plaintiff's counsel fees for violation of litigant's rights; and plenary hearings, which resulted in plaintiff receiving primary residential custody of the daughters and an increase of defendant's child support. Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge in her written statements of facts and conclusions of law. The parties were divorced by entry of a JOD in February 2014. Germane to this appeal, the judgment incorporated a marital separation agreement (MSA), which provided that they have joint legal and residential custody of their three daughters, seventeen, fifteen, and twelve years old at the time, with shared parenting 1 Two orders were issued on this date. 2 A-0353-15T2 time. Nine months later, a court order was entered giving plaintiff sole residential custody of the oldest daughter due to changed circumstances. Thereafter, defendant retired and relocated sixty miles away from where his two youngest daughters resided with plaintiff, making the shared residential custody arrangement impractical. He subsequently filed a motion to obtain primary residential custody of his daughters and termination of child support; asserting that his new hometown has a better school system and is in an environmentally safer area.2 Plaintiff cross- moved for: primary residential custody; modification of parenting time drop-off; recalculation of child support; full payment of her shares of the 2013 tax refund and the sale of the marital home; and sanctions against defendant for violations of court orders related to the distribution of marital ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals