NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0562-19T2 SURAIYA BEGUM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SENTHILKUMAR PALANISAMY HEWITT, a/k/a SENTHIL KUMAR PALANISAMY, Defendant-Appellant, and KATHRYN HEWITT, Defendant. ______________________________ Submitted October 13, 2020 ‒ Decided November 16, 2020 Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FM-04-0760-15. Senthilkumar Palanisamy Hewitt, appellant pro se. Freidel & Kramer, PC, attorneys for respondent (Talbot B. Kramer Jr., on the brief). PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matter, defendant/father appeals from a September 20, 2019 Family Part order denying him reconsideration of a June 4, 2019 order, addressing custody, parenting time, and related issues pertaining to his daughter, Alexis1, and awarding plaintiff/mother counsel fees. We affirm. We glean these facts from the record. After the parties married in India, plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Singapore, gave birth to Alexis in October, 2014, in the United States, where defendant, who was born in India, was residing.2 Although the parties dispute the underlying circumstances of the marriage,3 the marriage was annulled on October 8, 2015, by entry of a consent 1 As the compelling interest of protecting the child's privacy outweighs the Judiciary's commitment to transparency in this matter, a fictious first name is used for the minor child. 2 Defendant is a United States citizen. 3 Plaintiff asserted that after meeting defendant on an online dating site in 2012, a relationship developed, leading to their marriage in India on December 31, 2013, where the parties had travelled to attend defendant's mother's funeral. However, when plaintiff returned to the United States with defendant to give birth to Alexis, she discovered defendant was already married. On the other hand, defendant denied that the parties were ever married and claimed that plaintiff knew he was already married when she returned to the United States with him. A-0562-19T2 2 order for judgment of nullity (consent order) signed by Judge Sherri Schweitzer. The consent order, which contained both typed and handwritten provisions, was executed by the parties, who were then both represented by counsel. In addition to addressing issues related to the annulment of the marriage, the consent order addressed Alexis's custody, care, support, and parenting time. Under the order, the parties "share[d] joint legal custody of Alexis." However, plaintiff was awarded "primary physical custody" and "permitted to relocate to Singapore with . . . Alexis[,]" who would "retain her United States citizenship." Subject to changes made by consent of the parties or court order, defendant was "permitted to liberally visit . . . Alexis in Singapore[,]" with the first visit to be supervised by plaintiff's family. Upon providing proof of completion of a parenting class within ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals