RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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 NOS. A-1676-18T1 A-1887-18T1 WENDY CURRAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KEVIN CURRAN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued February 25, 2020 – Decided April 6, 2020 Before Judges Yannotti, Currier and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-1198-12. Kevin Curran, appellant, argued the cause pro se. John E. Clancy argued the cause for respondent (Townsend, Tomaio & Newmark, LLC, attorneys; John E. Clancy, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, under Docket No. A-1676-18, defendant Kevin Curran appeals the Family Part's August 29, 2018 order which, among other things, denied his request to compel plaintiff Wendy Curran to obtain his written consent when taking their children out-of-state or out of school temporarily; denied his motion for a reduction in child support without prejudice; and required defendant to pay the cost for a certified public accountant to review and value plaintiff's retirement accounts for purposes of equitable distribution. Defendant also appeals under Docket No. A-1887-18 from an order dated December 12, 2018, which denied his motion for reconsideration of various provisions of the August 29, 2018 order; denied the parties' requests for frivolous litigation sanctions; and awarded plaintiff attorney's fees. We consolidate these appeals for purposes of our opinion and affirm both orders. I. We derive the following facts from the motion record. The parties were divorced by way of a November 20, 2013 judgment, which incorporated the terms of a property settlement agreement (PSA). They have two children, born in February 2007 and August 2010. A-1676-18T1 2 Article 2.1 of the PSA designated plaintiff as the primary, residential, custodial parent of the minor children, and defendant was to continue weekly therapeutic supervised parenting time with Dr. Mathias Hagovsky, or another mutually agreed upon supervisor until further order of the court. As per the terms of the PSA, after the court-appointed expert, Dr. Sharon Ryan- Montgomery, concluded her evaluation, either party could file a post-judgment motion to modify the parenting plan. Dr. Ryan-Montgomery issued her report on May 20, 2014. The record indicates that neither party made a motion to modify the parenting plan in the six years since the divorce. After her evaluation, Dr. Ryan-Montgomery recommended a parent coach for defendant and a parent coordinator to reunify the children with their father and monitor his progress with psychotherapy. The record shows that defendant's visitation with the children was minimal since the divorce. Defendant argued he was awarded "joint" custody of the children and therefore, plaintiff could not take the children out of New Jersey, even temporarily, without his prior written consent. He also argued plaintiff could not take the children out ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals