M.C. v. G.S.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

M.C.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

G.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________________

January 8, 2014

Telephonically argued December 19, 2013 Decided

 

Before Judges Lihotz and Maven.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FV-12-2429-11.

 

G.S., appellant, argued the cause pro se.

 

M.C., respondent, argued the cause pro se.

 

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a January 26, 2012 Family Part order that, among other things, granted defendant's request to withdraw her motion seeking allocation of anticipated day care expenses and a supervised visitation plan for plaintiff and their son. We affirm.

 

The relevant facts, drawn from the record provided to us, are not complex. Plaintiff and defendant are the parents of an autistic child born in October 2008. The parties are neither married nor living together. Defendant has sole legal custody of the child. Plaintiff's parenting time with the child is a significant issue between the parties. The limited record presented in this appeal and the transcript of the underlying proceeding demonstrates the acrimonious history between these parties, including allegations of domestic violence, criminal complaints, and multiple orders entered in multiple counties.

On January 26, 2012, the trial judge addressed two issues remaining from defendant's previously filed motion.1 Preliminarily, the judge stated that she was very familiar with the history of the parties, had read the extensive files prior to this hearing, and was aware that numerous orders had been entered in different counties. Focusing on the two issues before her that day, the judge addressed the daycare matter first. Defendant explained that she wanted to enroll the child in daycare in order to seek work and be available for interviews. The judge expressed her inclination to deny the request because defendant did not have a pending employment opportunity or any job prospects at that time.

Next, the court addressed the parenting time issue. In what, at that point, became a contentious hearing, defendant began by explaining that she filed the motion, in part, to replace her sister, whom she had designated as plaintiff's parenting time supervisor. Regarding whether the parenting time should be supervised or unsupervised, and who the parties would accept as a supervisor, defendant continuously and vehemently expressed her concerns with plaintiff's limited relationship with the child and the welfare of the child with plaintiff's proposed supervisor. In retort, plaintiff assiduously argued that his attempts to see his child were frustrated by defendant's actions, including her failure to select a family member to supervise his parenting time. Over defendant's objections, the judge ultimately accepted plaintiff's niece as the replacement supervisor and turned to address the visitation schedule.

As the judge began to formulate a time schedule for plaintiff's visitation, defendant indicated she did not want the hearing to continue and informed the judge that she wanted to withdraw her motion. The following colloquy occurred:

[G.S.]: I just want to go. I really do. I just, with all due respect . . . I don't know what. I cannot allow this [to] happen. . . . I'm going to appeal it.

 

[Court]: Okay. All right. Well, ma'am, let me just say this to you, if you want to withdraw on your motion for today, you can do that; okay? You can withdraw [your] request for relief today, but my guess is we're going to find ourselves back in this place in February or March so - -

 

[G.S.]: But then it goes to another judge, I mean, the higher courts. I can't. . . .

 

. . . .

 

[Court]: Okay. But I'm saying if you want to withdraw your application today, then there's nothing for the Court to enter an order in.

 

[G.S]: I don't understand. I don't want to disrespect you, you're just . . .

 

[Court]: I understand, and that's why I'm trying to explain to you, if what you're saying to me is, Judge, there were two open issues that you had to make a decision about; one was daycare costs, and the other was supervised parenting time; okay?

 

. . . .

 

[Court]: . . . So what I'm saying to you is, if what you're saying to me is, Judge, I don't want you to make a determination about the supervised parenting time issue today, I'm withdrawing the request, I don't want that decided today. I don't want you to make a decision about the daycare costs today, I'm withdrawing that part of my motion, then you can do that, and we'll leave, and there's nothing else for the Court to make a determination.

 

[G.S]: . . . I think I want to just withdraw. I'm too stressed, and I think I'm going to come off - - I'm really taken aback by even the idea of this being entertained[,] that it's going to be unsupervised without [the child's] family members.

 

[Court]: Yeah. I get it. I understand it wasn't what you wanted.

 

[G.S]: I don't want to come off . . . to you as I am right now. . . . I'm completely disappointed, and he's frustrating me beyond belief.

 

. . . .

 

[G.S.]: So I withdraw.

 

. . . .

 

[G.S.]: So what happens?

 

[Court]: . . . [Y]ou'll get an order saying that those two provisions for relief are withdrawn by you, and the Court's order with respect to everything from January 6th remains the same.

 

Thereafter, the judge entered the order memorializing the withdrawal of defendant's motion. This appeal followed.

Initially, we were not clear as to the precise nature of defendant's appeal. In the notice of appeal, defendant states that she was forced to withdraw her motion. Defendant's brief does not address any errors in the January 26, 2012 order with respect to the trial judge's decision; nor does the brief assert any legal basis for our review of that order. At oral argument, defendant clarified she was not contending the January 26, 2012 order was incorrect, or that the judge erred in entering the order, rather she suggests she was forced to withdraw her motion because of her belief the motion judge lacked interest in the case and was unprepared for the hearing.

Without a specific claim of error supported by references to the record and relevant law, we cannot properly consider an appeal. See State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294, 296 (App. Div. 1977). Any issues related thereto are deemed waived and abandoned. SeePressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4 on R.2:6-2 (2014); see also Gormley v. Wood-El, 422 N.J. Super. 426, 437 n.3 (App. Div. 2011), leave to appeal granted, 210 N.J.25 (2012).

We have carefully considered defendant's argument in light of the record and conclude that any issues presented are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R.2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We add only a brief comment with respect to defendant's dissatisfaction with the trial judge's handling of the hearing. The record is clear that defendant withdrew her motion voluntarily. The judge aptly advised defendant of the effect of the withdrawal and then entered a corresponding order. Defendant's attack on the judge's integrity is unwarranted, as the transcript plainly demonstrates that the judge was well acquainted with the case history and the issues, before and during the motion hearing.

Affirmed.

 

1 On January 6, 2012, the judge entered an order after deciding other issues raised in the motion on the papers. R. 5:5-4.