P.T. VS. A.T. (FM-06-0217-09, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1211-19
P.T.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted April 27, 2021 – Decided May 5, 2021
Before Judges Fisher, Gilson, and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County,
Docket No. FM-06-0217-09.
A.T., appellant pro se.
Bertram Law Office, LLC, attorneys for respondent
(Rebecca J. Bertram, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment divorce matter, defendant A.T.,1 who according to
the undisputed record has not been allowed to see his child in over four years,
appeals the latest order in a series of orders imposing a "temporary suspension"
of his parenting time. Because the court's continuous suspension of his
parenting time is unsupported by any finding of defendant's unfitness or harm
to the child and because the court misapplied the law, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings.
The parties were divorced in 2009. They have one daughter, who was
born in December 2006. Plaintiff, who is the child's mother, is the parent of
primary residential custody. Since their divorce, the parties have filed numerous
motions concerning parenting issues, most centering on defendant's parenting
time. The trial court has issued over twenty orders addressing the parties' post-
divorce disputes. In this appeal, we address the latest in that series of orders.
In February 2017, plaintiff filed an application to suspend defendant's
parenting time, alleging their daughter had reported seeing defendant watch
pornography on his cell phone. Plaintiff did not allege defendant had exposed
their daughter directly to the pornography by showing it to her or had engaged
1
We use initials to avoid any unnecessary invasion of the parties' privacy and
because of the child-related issues.
A-1211-19
2
in any other improper conduct with her. On February 21, 2017, the court entered
an order to show cause to address plaintiff's allegation and temporarily
suspended defendant's parenting time, based solely on the allegation in
plaintiff's verified complaint, pending the return date. Thus begins this four-
year odyssey.
On March 17, 2017, the court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
application to suspend defendant's parenting time. The court heard testimony
from an employee of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and
Permanency, who was involved in the case because the Division had opened an
investigation based on a referral it had received. The Division employee
testified the Division had not yet interviewed defendant and confirmed the child
had made statements to investigators consistent with the allegation in the
complaint. Defendant denied the allegation and expressed concerns "there is no
terms to define where and how [his parenting time] will be restored." The court
advised defendant "absolutely there would have to be some groundwork laid as
to how that parenting time could be reinstated" if the court continued the
suspension of defendant's parenting time.
Noting the record reflected consistent but uncorroborated statements by
the child about seeing defendant watch pornography, the court did not make a
A-1211-19
3
finding defendant had watched pornography while the child was present.
Nevertheless, the court continued the "temporary suspension" of defendant's
parenting time, reasoning:
So I am in a rather unenviable position as a judge where
I have uncorroborated statements by a child that are
only corroborated by their consistency, an argument by
dad that the child is influenced by adults and an
argument by mom that dad should have a psychological
evaluation and or perhaps some psychological
treatment in regard to this situation before dad is again
allowed to see the child. Who, unquestionably by the
reports as I remember, loved seeing her father when she
did have an opportunity to do so, had clearly a very
positive relationship with her father based on the
reports of the supervised visitation. . . .
I can either simply allow dad to continue to visit as he
has been visiting as though nothing has happened . . . .
Or I could err to the side of protecting the child,
continue the visits as temporarily suspended and order
that the father engage in a new psychological
evaluation which takes into consideration [the court-
appointed expert's] psychological evaluation and the
statements of the child . . . making allegations allegedly
in regard to this situation. And make sure that I have a
psychological that says that taking into consideration
all of these things, including this allegation, in regard
to possibly viewing inappropriate material in the
presence of the child and what that might tell a
psychologist what that could lead to. It seems to me the
right thing to do here is to order that I err to the side of
protecting the child . . . .
A-1211-19
4
The court ordered defendant to undergo a psychological evaluation and stated it
would conduct an additional hearing and "revisit" the suspension of defendant's
parenting time after it received the psychological report.
After concluding the hearing and after the litigants left the courtroom, the
judge in what he described as a "highly abnormal" procedure, went back on the
record "in case . . . the Appellate Division[] is ever looking at this." He stated
he "didn't want to say this in the presence of [defendant] because I would be
inviting issues for myself in the future," specifically, "if I said it in [defendant's]
presence he would never not argue strongly again, because he's very smart that
way." The court described defendant as usually being "ferocious" in his
arguments, but that day was "a lamb" and because defendant "meekly accept[ed]
what I did makes me believe that there might be some truth to the accusations."
He referred to his statement as an "observation." It certainly was not a finding
rendered on substantial credible evidence in the record reached after giving
defendant an opportunity to rebut any evidence against him.
On the same day, the court entered an order continuing the suspension of
defendant's parenting time "until such time as [defendant] can complete a
satisfactory psychological evaluation that addresses the concerns raised on the
record" and requiring defendant to "undergo a psychological evaluation to
A-1211-19
5
address the concerns that predicated the instant Order to Show Cause, and to
follow through on any treatment recommendations that result from that
evaluation." The court directed the parties to cooperate with the psychologist
and authorized the psychologist to meet with plaintiff and the child if the
psychologist deemed those meetings necessary. The court also granted
defendant daily telephone communications with the child if the child did not
"veto" those communications.
We dismissed defendant's appeal of that order because it was not a final
order given the further proceedings the court anticipated having after defendant
completed the psychological evaluation. See P.T. v. A.T., No. A-3932-16 (App.
Div. May 16, 2018) (slip op. at 11).
In a letter dated September 18, 2017, the court advised defendant and
plaintiff's counsel it was issuing a protective order limiting the dissemination of
a September 3, 2017 psychological evaluation 2 of defendant to counsel only.
The court stated the recommendations contained in the evaluation "must be
2
The record does not contain a copy of the evaluation. The court permitted
defendant, who is self-represented, to make arrangements to view the report at
the courthouse.
A-1211-19
6
satisfied in order for the court to consider allowing [defendant] to have further
contact with the child." The court set forth those recommendations in the letter:
1. [Defendant] should contact his prescribing physician
pertaining to his current symptoms of forgetfulness,
impaired concentration, and disrupted sleeping
patterns. He should inform his physician of his
beliefs pertaining to [plaintiff] and [another person]
purportedly conspiring against him. His physician
should forward any changes in his medication to the
court.
2. [Defendant][3] should be afforded the opportunity to
recomplete formal testing if he is inclined to do so.
3. [Defendant] should become involved in individual
psychotherapy in order to address the way he forges
ultimately deleterious male-female relationships.
Reports of his participation in individual
psychotherapy should be forwarded to the court.
4. When [defendant] has demonstrated participation in
recommendations one and three, supported by
appropriate documentation, then supervised
visitation between him and his daughter . . . at the
Courthouse could be supported.
On December 5, 2017, defendant filed a motion, attempting to prove he
had complied with the recommendations and seeking parenting time. In support
of his motion, defendant certified he had met with his physician, had relayed to
3
The court began this paragraph by referencing "Ms." T. We believe that
reference was an error given the context and use of "he" later in the sentence.
A-1211-19
7
him the information the court required him to relay, and had participated in
biweekly psychotherapy, attaching documentation regarding two appointments.
On January 25, 2018, the court denied defendant's motion. The court
found although defendant had stated "he has done the required evaluations,
physician visit, and individual psychotherapy," he failed to provide the court
with "a report . . . outlining the therapy, prognosis, plan, or an opinion that
[d]efendant is not a danger to visit with his daughter." The court held "[w]ithout
a report, [defendant] is far from reaching the level of a substantial change in
circumstances necessary to consider a modification of the parenting time."
In our May 16, 2018 opinion, we noted we had been informed during the
April 10, 2018 oral argument the psychological report had been completed. Ibid.
We directed the court to hold a follow-up hearing concerning the "temporary
suspension" of defendant's parenting time within thirty days of the opinion.
Ibid. Following that directive, the court conducted a hearing 4 on June 7, 2018,
and issued an order adopting the September 2017 evaluation and repeating the
previous recommendations defendant had to meet for the court to consider
permitting supervised visitation. The court further required defendant to follow
4
The record does not contain a copy of the transcript of this hearing.
A-1211-19
8
those recommendations before it would accept for filing any further motions
from him,5 denied defendant's request for supervised visits at the courthouse,
and barred defendant from contacting the child's school or attending school
events.
On October 30, 2018, the court received a letter from defendant asking
the court to schedule the second psychological evaluation provided for in the
September 2017 evaluation. Two days later, the judge's law clerk sent a letter
advising the court was denying the request because the evaluating doctor had
indicated "there is no need for a re-evaluation until the above recommendations
have been complete" and defendant had not provided documentation
establishing he had completed them.
On December 7, 2018, the court received a letter from defendant disputing
the court's findings and again requesting the second evaluation be scheduled. In
a January 16, 2019 letter, the judge's law clerk responded, stating defendant had
5
Defendant did not appeal this order. Given our remand, we remind the parties
and the court that in E.S. v. H.A., 451 N.J. Super. 374, 390 (App. Div. 2017),
we held a similar precondition violated the defendant's "right to invoke the
equitable powers of the Family Part to modify its order denying him any
parenting time." See also Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 44 (App. Div.
2010) (reversing order conditioning filing of future motions, including
parenting-time motions, on requirement that parties participate in settlement
conferences).
A-1211-19
9
failed to supply documentation regarding the appointment with his physician, a
report from the organization or doctor which whom he had had psychotherapy,
or an opinion finding "[defendant] is not a danger to visit with his daughter."
The law clerk stated defendant was "far from reaching the level of a substantial
change in circumstances necessary to consider a modification of the parenting
time."
On June 25, 2019, defendant filed a motion to demonstrate compliance
with the court's orders and requesting parenting time. He included in the motion
his physician's notes from a December 2017 appointment, documentation
regarding his participation in psychotherapy, and psychological evaluations
performed in October 2018 and June 2019. In the 2019 report, the evaluator
concluded, "[g]iven these results, [defendant] does not appear to be at immediate
or future risk to harm his daughter." Defendant understandably believed he had
complied with the required recommendations.
Plaintiff opposed the motion, complaining she had not seen the reports
and defendant had not provided proof he had spoken about the alleged
pornography-viewing incident with any doctor or evidence "he has received help
for this issue." She advised the court their daughter, then twelve years old,
"rarely communicates with her father on the phone. She gets frustrated by the
A-1211-19
10
superficial conversations she has with her dad. She does not feel that he is
making a connection with her or listening to what she is saying." She noted,
however, the child "does miss her father and would like to see him."
The court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing on July 26, 2019. During
the hearing, the court stated
I looked at my law clerk yesterday and I said to him,
"Did I really enter an order that said that [defendant]
should get a report or should try to" -- I guess I said he
should follow the recommendations of [the September
2017 evaluation] and I guess I didn’t get specific
enough to say that anybody giving an evaluation of
[defendant] should make sure that that person talks with
[plaintiff] to address her concerns and sees the history
of this case.
The court acknowledged defendant had submitted a report from a psychologist,
opining defendant was not a danger to the child, but stated:
I do not believe the person that rendered that report had
any full knowledge of the totality of the circumstances
of this case to such a point that I am satisfied to modify
the order in some way and to allow you contact with a
12-year-old female child. I’m not comfortable with it,
do not believe it to be in the child’s best interest.
The court faulted the report for not referencing "all of the other incidents and
concerns that existed in regard to this case, including the incident that caused
your visitation to be suspended before." The court stated it would provide the
information submitted by defendant to the doctor who prepared the September
A-1211-19
11
2017 evaluation for further recommendations from him.6 Because the court was
not "comfortable" with unsupervised visits, defendant asked the court for
supervised visits with his daughter. The court denied that request.
I’m not going to take advantage of the court system
again as of this time to provide for six short visits that
would only – that would only introduce you to your
daughter’s life for a very short amount of time. It might
harm her when there were none after that. [7]
The court denied defendant's motion in a written order.
The [c]ourt finds no change of circumstances that
justifies modification of the prior order. . . . The [c]ourt
does not believe that the individual who rendered the
report stating that [d]efendant is no longer a danger to
the children had full knowledge of the totality of the
circumstances of this case to a point that this [c]ourt can
modify the previous [O]rder.
Someone reading that order would think the court previously found defendant
posed a danger to his child. But we know the court made no such finding.
6
The record is devoid of any information regarding whether further
recommendations were made.
7
We have cautioned courts about pre-judging future applications. See, e.g.,
E.S., 451 N.J. Super. at 390 ("It may well be that any future application may
fail, absent defendant's efforts to address the very issues [the court-appointed
expert] saw as vital to the gradual reinstitution of parenting time. However, the
court should not reach that conclusion in advance of such a request.").
A-1211-19
12
On August 13, 2019, defendant moved for reconsideration of the July 26,
2019 order. Defendant included in the motion a letter from the psychologist
who had prepared the June 2019 report stating he was aware of plaintiff's
allegation that defendant had watched pornography during his last visit with his
daughter and found it "did not seem credible."
In an order dated September 13, 2019, and stamped filed on October 21,
2019, the court denied the motion, describing it as being "entirely without
merit." The court found "no change of circumstances . . . justif[ying]
reconsideration," repeating its belief defendant's evaluators did not have
sufficient information. The court held defendant "failed to provide confirmation
that he has complied with the recommendations" but "[i]nstead . . . sought two
separate evaluations with conflicting results." This appeal followed.
In this appeal of the October 21, 2019 order, defendant asserts the court
"is changing the reasoning behind the rejection of [d]efendant's petition to
establish parenting time." Defendant complains, "[w]ithout a clear and specific
description of the requirements to accomplish in order [to] establish parenting
time, [defendant] will never be able to comply and will never be able to see the
child." Defendant argues the court's decision was palpably incorrect because he
provided proof of his compliance with the court's prior orders. Defendant asserts
A-1211-19
13
he has not seen his daughter since the order to show cause was issued on
February 21, 2017, over four years ago; plaintiff does not dispute that assertion.
Our review of a family judge's factual findings is normally limited. N.J.
Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. J.B., 459 N.J. Super. 442, 450 (App. Div.
2019). We defer to a family judge's factual findings when supported by
substantial, credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs.
v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012); see also Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413
(1998). We intervene only when a trial judge's factual conclusions are "so wid e
of the mark" they are "clearly mistaken." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007). When the court makes no factual findings and
holds no evidentiary hearing, there is nothing warranting our deference.
Moreover, we review de novo a judge's legal conclusions. J.B., 459 N.J. Super.
at 451.
Parents have a fundamental, constitutional right to raise, care for, and
maintain a relationship with their children. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs.
v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 102 (2008); Wilke v. Culp, 196 N.J. Super. 487, 496 (App.
Div. 1984). "[A]ssur[ing] minor children of frequent and continuing contact
with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage"
is a public policy of our State. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. Consequently, our law "favors
A-1211-19
14
visitation and protects against the thwarting of effective visitation rights."
Wilke, 196 N.J. Super. at 496.
The State also has a responsibility "to protect children from serious
physical and psychological harm, even from their parents." E.P., 196 N.J. at
496. See also J.B., 459 N.J. Super. at 451. Thus, "a parent's custody and
visitation rights may be restricted, or even terminated, where the relation of one
parent . . . with the child cause[s] emotional or physical harm to the child, or
where the parent is shown to be unfit." Wilke, 196 N.J. Super. at 496. See also
In re Adoption of J.J.P., 175 N.J. Super. 420, 430 (App. Div. 1980) (finding
"[a]bsent serious wrong-doing or unfitness, the right of visitation is strong and
compelling").
We reverse the court's order because it is premised not on a finding of
unfitness of the parent or harm to the child – the court never made that finding
– but on evolving requirements and a misapplication of the law. A court has the
authority and even sometimes the obligation to restrict or terminate parental
rights but may exercise that authority only when credible evidence clearly and
convincingly establishes parental unfitness or harm to the child. See, e.g., E.S.,
451 N.J. Super. at 379 (affirming order granting plaintiff sole legal custody and
denying defendant parenting time based on trial court's finding by clear and
A-1211-19
15
convincing evidence defendant had sexually abused the parties' child); Wilke,
196 N.J. Super. at 503 (holding father's visitation rights "should not have been
denied unless it clearly and convincingly appeared that this was one of those
exceptional cases where visitation would have caused physical or emotional
harm to the children, or where it was demonstrated that the noncustodial parent
was unfit").
As best we can tell, the court suspended defendant's parenting time in the
February 2017 order to show cause based on allegations contained in plaintiff's
verified complaint. On the return date, – without taking testimony from either
parent, without interviewing the child, without any report from an expert, and
before the Division investigator had interviewed defendant – the court continued
the suspension, assuring defendant it was temporary, and saying it was "err[ing]
to the side of protecting the child." The problem with that decision is the court
had not determined the child needed protection from defendant.
Treating that decision as if it were a finding of unfitness, the court applied
a change-of-circumstances standard to defendant's subsequent applications. The
court denied all of defendant's subsequent applications because by failing to
comply with the recommendations, he had not demonstrated a change of
circumstances. The problem with those decisions is the "circumstances" causing
A-1211-19
16
the suspension of defendant's parenting time were not fact-based findings of
unfitness or harm to the child but an unproven allegation. See Finamore v.
Aronson, 382 N.J. Super. 514, 522 (App. Div. 2006) (viewing party's request as
one for modification of an order based on current facts and circumstances).
Before the allegation was made, the circumstances, as recognized by the family
court at the March 17, 2017 hearing, were that the child "loved seeing her father"
and "had clearly a very positive relationship with" him. It was plaintiff's burden
to prove the allegation before the circumstances changed. Only a decision as to
whether the allegation was proven and, if proven, whether it renders defendant
an unfit parent such that his right to parenting time should be modified or
supervised will resolve this issue.
We understand the difficult decisions our family judges face when
balancing a parent's rights and concern for a child. See E.S., 451 N.J. Super. at
383. But four years is not a temporary suspension, and a decision to bar a parent
from seeing his child must be based on an actual finding of harm to the child or
unfitness of the parent supported by substantial credible evidence in the record.
That finding was never made here.
This matter is remanded for immediate entry of an order (1) granting
defendant weekly supervised parenting time under the Division's supervision
A-1211-19
17
effective ten days from the date of this opinion; and (2) scheduling to take place
within thirty days of the date of this opinion an evidentiary hearing regarding
whether defendant is entitled to unsupervised parenting time, considering the
best interests of the child in conformity with our opinion, and, if so, what
conditions, if any, should be imposed by the court. At the hearing, plaintiff must
prove the allegation that defendant viewed pornography while the child was
present and, if so, whether there is a risk of harm posed to the child if parenting
time with defendant is resumed. The parties shall be permitted to present
evidence and call witnesses and the court may consider the testimony of any
qualified psychologist or expert proffered by the parties or appointed by the
court. See Wilke, 196 N.J. Super. at 501 (discussing "the types of proofs from
which it could be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the reinstatement
of [a party's] visitation rights would cause physical or emotional harm to the
child.").
We also direct the matter be reassigned to a different family judge so the
hearing can be conducted, and the issue determined based on the evidence
presented at the hearing. Within fifteen days of the conclusion of the hearing,
the newly-assigned judge is to issue a written order and opinion setting forth
findings of facts and conclusions of law consistent with Rule 1:74(a). Copies
A-1211-19
18
of the court's opinion and orders are to be sent to and filed with the clerk of the
Appellate Division under this docket number. Each party will have fifteen days
from the date of the family court's new order to file a supplemental brief stating
whether he or she objects to the new order and, if so, the basis of all objections.
The dates we have set are peremptory; the evidentiary hearing must take place
within thirty days of the date of this opinion, the court must issue its order and
opinion within fifteen days of the conclusion of the hearing, and the
supplemental briefs must be filed within fifteen days of the date of the family
court's new order.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
retain jurisdiction.
A-1211-19
19