STEPHANIE MARK v. CLYDE MARK, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5634-04T15634-04T1

STEPHANIE MARK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CLYDE MARK, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Argued November 8, 2006 - Decided November 29, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County,

Docket No. FD-07-2645-03.

Clyde Mark, Jr., appellant, argued the cause

pro se.

Melissa Cipriano argued the cause for respondent

(Cipriano Law Offices, attorneys; Ms. Cipriano,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Stephanie Mark and Clyde Mark were married on May 12, 2001, and they have one child, Ciara Mark, who was born on December 4, 2002. Since the parties separated in June 2002, they have appeared in court many times on several different issues, but they remain married.

Defendant's notice of appeal indicates that he is appealing from an order entered on May 13, 2005, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an order dated July 16, 2004. But during oral argument before us, defendant indicated that his main concern was another order, dated March 7, 2005, requiring his visitation with his daughter to be supervised. During the trial court proceedings on May 13, 2005, the court indicated that it had ordered supervised visitation because of conflicting allegations regarding the interaction between Ciara and her father, and it also explained that it was waiting for a recommendation from the Supervised Visitation Unit:

And given that, the [c]ourt ordered supervised visitation so that the [c]ourt personnel who are schooled in the area of visitation could observe interactions by everyone and then report to the [c]ourt, which is routinely done in every supervised visitation matter. Because obviously what I'm concerned about is that father and child are comfortable with each other and that any unsupervised visitation, if so recommended, was a logical next step.

. . . .

. . . And this [c]ourt is in the position of awaiting the recommendation of the . . . Supervised Visitation Unit.

If you decide, Mr. Mark, you do not wish to participate, then it is your choice and then I will receive a recommendation from the . . . Supervised Visitation Unit that you did not participate; therefore, they are not able to . . . make any recommendation about unsupervised visitation. That's your choice.

During oral argument before us, defendant stated that he had not seen his daughter, Ciara, for more than a year even though he successfully completed the supervised visitation program and he received a favorable report from the Supervised Visitation Unit in April or May of 2005. Defendant's claim was disputed, however, by plaintiff's attorney, who stated that defendant's last visit with his daughter occurred on March 5, 2005, which was prior to the entry of the order for supervised visitation.

Our review of the record confirms that the trial court fully explained its reasons for ordering supervised visitation, and it also explained its reasons for the enforcement order of May 13, 2005, and the order of July 18, 2005, awarding counsel fees to plaintiff. The trial court's findings are amply supported by the record and they are binding on us. "'[W]e do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of No. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)); see Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998) ("Because of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference to family court factfinding."). We are satisfied from our review of the record that the trial court's findings and legal conclusions do not offend the interests of justice and there is no legitimate reason for us to interfere with the orders entered by the trial court.

It is not clear from the limited record before us why defendant has not seen his daughter for such a substantial period of time. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to note that we are unable to modify the supervised visitation provision in the order of March 7, 2005, based on disputed information that was not presented to the trial court. The record confirms that on May 13, 2005, the trial court was waiting for a report from the Supervised Visitation Unit. If defendant has subsequently received a favorable report or recommendation from the Supervised Visitation Unit, then we urge him to provide a copy of whatever he received to both the trial court and his wife's attorney.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5634-04T1

November 29, 2006