CARMEN ROMAN v. RONALD TRIVINIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5674-10T3

CARMEN ROMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RONALD TRIVINIA,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________

ArguedMarch 28, 2012 Decided April23, 2012

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Ostrer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FM-04-14-07.

Carmen Roman, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from the Family Part orders dated April 29 and June 24, 2011, denying her motion to (1) compel visitation with her adult daughter; (2) order defendant, her former spouse, to provide their daughter's telephone number; (3) direct that her daughter undergo therapy; and (4) award custody of their daughter to her. In denying the motion, Judge John T. Kelley, recognizing that plaintiff's daughter was over eighteen years old, explained that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant any of the relief sought by plaintiff. The judge also noted that he had previously entered an order on April 29, 2011, denying a similar request by plaintiff. We affirm.

Defendant was granted custody of the parties' daughter before her eighteenth birthday after a custody proceeding was conducted in Pennsylvania, where plaintiff previously resided. During that proceeding, the court interviewed the parties' daughter, who expressed her preference to live with her father in New Jersey. The April 14, 2010 order granting custody to defendant also transferred jurisdiction to the New Jersey courts.

On appeal, plaintiff raises no particular error committed by the motion judge. Rather, she reiterates her desire to have custody granted to her and alleges that her daughter is being mistreated. We have considered plaintiff's claims in light of the record and the applicable legal principles and conclude the motion judge properly ruled the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Plaintiff's daughter was born July 3, 1992. As such, at the time the court considered plaintiff's application, her daughter was less than two weeks from her nineteenth birthday. Plaintiff presented no competent evidence before the court of her daughter's incompetency or other disability from which the court could determine there was a basis upon which to continue jurisdiction.

A