ADVAITA PATEL v. AATASH PATEL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2572-11T4

ADVAITA PATEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AATASH PATEL,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________________

March 27, 2012

Argued March 20, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Nugent.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-925-12.

Joseph M. Murphy, Jr. argued the cause for appellant (Weinberger Law Group, L.L.C., attorneys; Laura Ruvolo Lipp, on the brief).

Daniel H. Brown argued the cause for respondent (Law Offices of Paone, Zaleski & Brown, attorneys; Mr. Brown, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Advaita Patel and defendant Aatash Patel are married but separated, and have one child, age thirteen months. On January 26, 2012, we granted plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal that part of the December 1, 2011 Family Part order directing that the parties "alternate physical custody of [their child] every other week," and from the subsequent order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

In her order to show cause seeking temporary physical custody of the parties' child and other relief, plaintiff had alleged that the child suffered from a medical condition that required plaintiff to continue breastfeeding. Although the December 1, 2011 order permitted plaintiff to file an application on the issue of parenting time provided she could "obtain a detailed medical report from [the child's] pediatrician as to why the child cannot be separated from his mother due to nursing," plaintiff argued that the medical issue should have been decided on an appropriate record before the court entered an order effectively separating the child and mother every other week.

Based upon the representations made by the parties at oral argument on this appeal, which included the representation that the child is no longer breastfeeding, we conclude that it was improvident to grant plaintiff's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and vacate our order staying the Family Part's orders of December 1 and 9, 2011.

A