ANN MARIE LUCARELLA v. NICHOLAS LUCARELLA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0779-05T10779-05T1

ANN MARIE LUCARELLA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NICHOLAS A. LUCARELLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted May 23, 2006 - Decided June 8, 2006

Before Judges Axelrad and Sabatino.

On Appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, FM-13-243-00C.

Peterson & Brook, attorneys for appellant (Warren L. Peterson, on the brief).

Frank A. Louis, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Nicholas Lucarella, a divorced father of three minor children, appeals the terms of supervised visitation expressed in an order issued by the Family Part on September 16, 2005. The children reside with their mother, respondent Ann Marie Lucarella, who divorced appellant in January 2002 after being victimized by a series of domestic violence incidents including terroristic threats.

At the time this appeal was briefed, appellant was out on $2.5 million bail and facing trial in the Criminal Part for attempting to murder his former matrimonial attorney who had unsuccessfully represented him in custody matters. An executed search warrant of appellant's premises uncovered anabolic steroids, as well as approximately $70,000 in cash and forged identification cards. Several evaluations of appellant by court-appointed mental health experts revealed that, although he loves his children and that they also care for him, he continues to harbor antipathy toward his ex-wife, disparages her in the presence of the children, and poses a risk of flight. A court-appointed guardian ad litem for the children strongly recommended that appellant's visits with them be closely supervised, and that he receive appropriate treatment to curb his displaying of open antipathy to their mother.

The September 16, 2005 order appealed from was entered after hearings in May and June 2005, an initial order of July 7, 2005, and oral argument in September 2005 on a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The order continues numerous conditions on the father's visitation, including supervised parenting time at the courthouse, limitations on disparagement, monitored telephone communication, drug testing, and other precautionary measures.

On appeal, the father raises the following arguments:

POINT I

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS REFUSAL TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT SOME FORM OF VISTITATION OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE, AND THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT TELEPHONE ACCESS TO THE CHILDREN AND TO BE ADVISED OF ANY MEDICAL CONCERNS OF THE CHILDREN IN THE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2005

POINT II

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO SIGN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND NORTH AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE

POINT III

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN ANY NEGATIVE INFERENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION AS THE RESULT OF HIM ASSERTING HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY

We understand that Point II, regarding the previously-unsigned insurance documents, is now moot.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm, substantially for the thoughtful and well-supported reasons set forth in Judge Ronald Lee Reisner's written opinions dated July 7, 2005, concerning the father's initial application for relief, and September 16, 2005 on reconsideration. We do so consistent with our limited standard of review of fact-sensitive rulings of the Family Part, particularly in custody matters. See Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998); Abouzhar v. Matera-Abouzhar, 361 N.J. Super. 135, 151 (App. Div. 2003). We are satisfied that none of the terms of the September 16, 2005 order are clearly erroneous, or represent an abuse of discretion, given this striking and unusual record.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-0779-05T1

June 8, 2006