RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3456-19T3 V.A.F., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J.G., Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Argued November 17, 2020 – Decided December 22, 2020 Before Judges Fisher and Gummer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FD-02-0193-15. Philip Petrullo argued the cause for appellant (Russo Petrullo Law Group, LLC, attorneys; Philip Petrullo on the brief). R.J.G., respondent, argued the cause pro se. PER CURIAM Plaintiff V.A.F. (Valerie) 1 appeals the judge's decision to deny her custody-modification motion without first conducting a plenary hearing. Because we agree with the judge's conclusion that plaintiff failed to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting a plenary hearing, we affirm. This action was initially filed by Valerie in 2014 when the parties' daughter A.G. (Anna) was approximately fifteen-months old. As memorialized in a September 11, 2014 order, defendant R.J.G. (Richard) acknowledged paternity, and the parties agreed to a parenting-time arrangement. About two years later, the parties reached a new agreement regarding parenting time, which was detailed in an August 10, 2016 consent order. Within a year, Valerie moved for sole custody. In an August 1, 2017 order, the judge denied that application, declined to modify parenting time, denied Valerie's request to impose supervised visitation, and ordered that certain medical and diagnostic evaluations be performed. As set forth in a December 6, 2017 order, the parties subsequently agreed to share joint legal custody of Anna, with Valerie being the parent of primary residence and Richard having regular weekly parenting time. 1 We use initials and fictitious names for ease of reading and to protect the identities of the parties. R. 1:38-3(d)(12). A-3456-19T3 2 Six months later, this case was before the court again. On June 7, 2018, the judge ordered the parties to comply with the December 6, 2017 order. The parties agreed to meet with Anna's therapist and were directed to follow her recommendations. After another six months passed, the court considered a new application filed by Valerie. In a December 18, 2018 order, the judge suspended one day of Richard's weekly parenting time until he cooperated with a therapist's recommendations but otherwise enforced all prior orders. The case was before the court again the following spring. After Anna told her therapist that her paternal uncle had sexually abused her, the parties agreed in a June 25, 2019 consent order that Anna would not have any contact with that uncle. The authorities who investigated that allegation ultimately concluded that no sexual abuse had occurred. Not long after that allegation, Anna, who was then over six-years old, told a case worker that Richard had touched her sexually when she was one-, two-, or three-years ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals