M.N. and B.W.-H. v. M.N. and I.S.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3574-05T43574-05T2

M.N. and B.W.-H.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

M.N. and I.S.,

Defendants-Respondents.

_________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 24, 2006 - Decided November 6, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County,

FD-07-2412-06.

Bonnie C. Frost argued the cause for appellants

(Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito, Frost & Ironson,

attorneys; M.N. and B.W.-H., on the pro se brief).

Respondents did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

The dispute in this case is between the natural mother of two infant children, defendant M.N., and her father and step-mother, plaintiffs M.N. and B.W.-H. The only pleading contained in the record is an order to show cause. We infer from that order, and from the certifications submitted by plaintiffs in support of their request for issuance of the order, that plaintiffs wished to interfere with defendant's custody of her children, and they wished to do so because they believed defendant was endangering the children's welfare. If a complaint was filed, it was not included in the record, a patent violation of Rule 2:6-1(a)(1).

The order to show cause, which was issued ex parte on October 31, 2005, temporarily restrained defendant from leaving New Jersey, and directed her to show cause why, among other things, plaintiffs should not be given temporary custody until evaluations could be made by competent professionals and by the Division of Youth and Family Services. The order to show cause did not require the filing of an answer, see Rule 4:52-1(b), and there is no evidence that a summons was issued or an answer was filed.

By order dated December 20, 2005, the judge in the Family Part, Essex County, who signed the order to show cause, denied the relief sought. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that order.

Appeals may only be taken from final orders or final judgments. R. 2:2-3(a). In the instant litigation, all that has occurred is a denial of relief sought in a motion to show cause. No answer has yet been filed, there has been no trial, and no party has resorted to the summary judgment process. Plaintiffs failed to seek leave to appeal, and we perceive no justification for granting such leave at this time. We note that the trial judge permitted the defendant to move out of the state with the children and it appears that she has moved to Michigan. Presumably the courts of that state can provide adequate relief if there is any present danger to the welfare of the children.

Appeal dismissed.

 

The record reveals that the Division evaluated the situation and determined that the children were not at risk, and a Deputy Attorney General confirmed that in court. The Division's records were submitted to the trial judge in camera, and she found that they contained no grounds for concern about the children's welfare.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3574-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 6, 2006