LINDSAY A. SHUR v. DAVID H. SHUR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0779-04T20779-04T2

LINDSAY A. SHUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DAVID H. SHUR,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 8, 2006 - Decided May 5, 2006

Before Judges Stern, Fall and Parker.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-171-99.

Lindsay A. Shur, appellant pro se.

Robin Jill Schneider, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Lindsay A. Shur appeals pro se from two orders, one entered on June 11, 2004, and the other, a consent order entered on August 12, 2004.

The June 11 order, prepared by the court, contained the following provisions:

ORDERED THAT any attempt by Plaintiff to serve Defendant by fax in the future shall be considered a violation of the rules of court. Any attempt by Plaintiff to serve Defendant by fax shall be considered a violation of this court's ruling today and Plaintiff shall be subject to sanctions for contempt of court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Plaintiff's request to be served in the manner that she has specified is denied. Defendant shall continue to serve Plaintiff in accordance with those methods provided for in the Rules of Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Supervised visitation may occur through Lilian Haber Gordon's program, or may be supervised by a person acceptable to both parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. All of Plaintiff's discovery requests from Dr. Reskoff, Dr. Breslin, DYFS, and the school are denied. Dr. Reskoff, Dr. Breslin, DYFS, and Erica's school, shall provide this court with copies of all documentation related to this matter within 30 days of this order. These documents shall be reviewed in camera.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Defendant shall have sole legal and physical custody of the minor children pending further findings by this court after a plenary hearing is held on this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. All child support payments are suspended pending the plenary hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with copies of all documents relating to the children's social security benefits. The Social Security Administration shall provide copies of all documents relating to the Shur children to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Whether or not Defendant may claim the children as dependents on his tax returns in the future, will be determined at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Erica's school may contact Judge Micheletti. Judge Micheletti will make all decisions relating to Erica's education until further order of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT. Any relief that was requested by the parties but not specifically addressed in this order is denied without prejudice.

The August 12, 2004 consent order provides as follows:

ORDERED AND AGREED:

1. That Defendant shall retain sole legal and physical custody of the two (2) minor children born of the marriage: ERICA V. SHUR, date of birth August 19, 1991; and MICHAEL SHUR, date of birth: February 26, 1995; and it is further

ORDERED AND AGREED:

2. If the Plaintiff so desires, the Plaintiff shall begin therapeutic reunification with the aforementioned two (2) minor children born of the marriage, upon the recommendations of the children's psychologist, Shoshana Baskind, Psy.D., Colts Neck Consulting Group, 29 Highway 34, Colts Neck, New Jersey 07722, (732) 780-6363, after Dr. Baskind has consulted with Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, who at this time, is Declan O'Scanlon, M.D., [and/or] Defendant's psychologist, Michele Rabinowitz, Psy.D., if Dr. Baskind deems it necessary to contact either treating professional. The overriding principle for the Plaintiff's therapeutic reunification and parenting-time, as recommended by Dr. Baskind, shall be to do what is in the best interests of the children; and it is further

ORDERED AND AGREED:

3. That the parties shall execute whatever releases are necessary to their own doctors, as well as to Dr. Baskind, so that Dr. Baskind has the right and permission to correspond, speak with, and contact their own therapists, at all times; and it is further

ORDERED AND AGREED:

4. That with the overriding interest always being in the best interest of the children, it is the goal of the parties that the Plaintiff shall resume positive and helpful influence in the children's lives, leading back to her full-time involvement in their lives; and it is further

ORDERED AND AGREED:

5. That all other issues, both financial and custodial, raised by both parties in their 2002, 2003, and 2004 Motions are hereby dismissed. To the extent that there is any conflict between this Consent Order and the parties' April 30, 1998 Property Settlement Agreement, this Consent Order shall be followed as to the financial, educational, and health and insurance issues regarding the children.

We need not detail the extensive procedural and factual history of this matter. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. The parties were married on September 5, 1998. Two children were born of the marriage: Erica on August 21, 1991, and Michael on February 26, 1995. A judgment of divorce was entered on October 19, 1989.

The two orders under appeal arose out of an extensive post-judgment motion relating to custody and child support filed by plaintiff on July 8, 2002. After nearly two years of litigation on the motion, the trial court entered the order on June 11, 2004, awarding defendant "sole legal and physical custody of the minor children pending further findings by this court after a plenary hearing is held."

Plaintiff moved for emergent relief before us on June 18, 2004. That application was denied on the ground that it "[did] not qualify for emergent relief" because the June 11, 2004 "order transferring custody is temporary. A trial is scheduled for August [ ] 2004."

The plenary hearing scheduled in the June 11, 2004 order began on August 3, 2004. Plaintiff failed to appear. The trial judge entered an order compelling her to appear on August 5. Plaintiff appeared and the hearing proceeded. On August 10 and 11, plaintiff, for the first time, indicated a willingness to settle the disputed custody and child support issues. On August 11, the trial judge directed defense counsel to prepare a consent order and fax it to plaintiff. The parties were then instructed to return on August 12 to "put everything all on the record."

On August 12, the parties returned and finalized the Consent Order for Custody and Parenting-Time. All of the provisions were read into the record and plaintiff, along with defense counsel and the trial judge, signed the consent order. The record clearly indicates that the trial judge made every effort to ascertain that plaintiff understood the terms of the order and was freely and voluntarily consenting to it. See transcript of the August 12, 2004 hearing.

Plaintiff has appealed from both orders and, to the extent we understand her arguments, she essentially maintains that there was no support for the court's findings in the June 11 order and that the August 12 consent order "is an abuse of discretion by the trial court of the most astonishing nature and indicates collusion of the trial court with opposing counsel in awarding custody to the father."

We have carefully considered the extensive record in light of plaintiff's arguments and the applicable law. We are satisfied that Judge Micheletti's decision in entering the order on June 11 was fully supported by the evidence presented. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). Moreover, the consent order entered on August 12, 2004 was exhaustively reviewed and discussed with plaintiff by Judge Micheletti and was entered with her full and freely given consent.

Affirmed.

 

Plaintiff has presented us with a total of twenty-three transcripts of post-judgment proceedings and 1,669 pages of material in her appendix.

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-0779-04T2

May 5, 2006