M.B. v. D.C.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3803-13T2

M.B.1 on behalf of G.B.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

D.C.,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

June 12, 2015

Argued June 2, 2015 - Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Haas.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Warren County, Docket No. FD-21-0299-11.

Grace E. Kelly argued the cause for appellant (Legal Services of Northwest Jersey, attorneys; Ms. Kelly, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

G.B. appeals from a December 3, 2013 award of supervised visitation, after completion of a risk assessment,2 to D.C., a person convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4. G.B. also appeals from an April 4, 2014 denial of her request for a plenary hearing upon reconsideration of the earlier order. These orders were entered under the non-dissolution docket number FD-21-0299-11. The appeal presents the issue of whether the court complied with N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.1(b), which requires that a parent convicted of endangering the welfare of a child demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the best interest of the child prior to the entry of a visitation order. D.C. did not participate in the appeal.

It was recently brought to our attention that during the pendency of this appeal, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) filed a complaint against the parents, G.B. and D.C., concerning their young son, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73 and N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12. It appears from the orders entered in that matter, the first of which is dated May 20, 2014, that D.C., although noticed, has not appeared in the action. It also appears that the Division has custody of the child and that G.B. was incarcerated as recently as May 28, 2015. Thus, any visitation that the child has with his parents is now controlled by ongoing orders entered under an abuse or neglect docket, FN-21-162-14.

We therefore dismiss this appeal because it is not ripe for adjudication.3 A court examines the fitness of the issues for judicial review, and the hardship to the parties if review is denied. Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 99 (2010) (citation omitted). Courts will not resolve claims that are "contingent upon future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 720, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2847, 165 L. Ed. 2d 723, 832 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Dismissed.

1 M.B. is G.B.'s mother. Both G.B. and her child were living with M.B. at the time the orders on appeal were entered.

2 At oral argument, plaintiff's counsel informed us that, to her knowledge, D.C. has never completed the required risk assessment.

3 We received a letter dated June 5, 2015 from G.B.'s counsel indicating she defers to us the determination of whether the issues she raised are appropriate for disposition at this time.