AMANDA J. REA v. DONALD R. HUGHES, JR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

AMANDA J. REA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DONALD R. HUGHES, JR.,

Defendant-Respondent.

May 1, 2014

Submitted March 25, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Carroll.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FD-04-2682-06.

Amanda J. Rea, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Amanda J. Rea appeals the entry of a June 18, 2012 Family Part order. Rea is self-represented on appeal and was self-represented during the hearing that resulted in the order. Defendant Donald R. Hughes, Jr., was also self-represented and has not responded to this appeal.

By way of background, the parties have one child, born November 2003. On April 10, 2006, the Family Part entered an order "retain[ing] jurisdiction regarding all matters concerning child custody, child support, and parenting time." Hughes, who lives in Ohio and has never lived in New Jersey, filed a motion seeking to modify the terms of visitation in the spring of 2012. At the time of the 2006 order, Rea and the child lived in New Jersey; however, they relocated to Pennsylvania in 2009. In 2012, when the order being appealed issued, neither party resided in New Jersey.

Rea had registered her order of custody in Pennsylvania, but the Pennsylvania court has not assumed jurisdiction. The 2012 modification order in dispute granted Hughes two weeks of additional visitation, specified the time of year it was to be exercised, specified the time of phone calls, and similar details regarding his exercise of parenting time.

Rea now contends that the Family Part judge lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-53 to -95. We affirm.

The trial judge conducted the 2012 hearing while Rea was on the telephone and Hughes was present in court. It was, literally, the first day of Hughes' extended two-week term of summer visitation. Rea did not object to participating in the proceedings via telephone. From our reading of the transcript, Rea, although puzzled that the matter was going forward in New Jersey despite her filing of the custody and visitation order in Pennsylvania, was ultimately amenable to having the terms of visitation modified. She also mentioned that the child was "ordered" to receive unspecified "medical assistance" in New Jersey, even though she had thought Pennsylvania had "jurisdiction over everything else."

Initially, the Family Part judge concluded, in accord with Griffith v. Tressel, 394 N.J. Super. 128 (App. Div. 2007), that she had no jurisdiction because the order had been lodged in Pennsylvania. Upon being advised by the Clerk of the Court in Pennsylvania, however, that no formal assumption of jurisdiction had occurred, the judge made the pragmatic decision to go forward and decide the issues.

Although technically improper for us to consider, as it was not part of the record at the time the court made its decision, we note that Rea's appendix includes an October 15, 2012 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, assuming jurisdiction. Seemingly attached to that order is an August 30, 2012 order signed by the Family Part judge who presided over this dispute. The body of the New Jersey order indicates that, a week earlier, both parties acknowledged and agreed that Berks County, Pennsylvania, was the appropriate jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, at the time of the hearing at issue, the Family Part judge had both parties in court. Rea fully participated in the resolution of the matter, albeit telephonically. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-66 provides that a court in which a child custody order entered has continuing jurisdiction until it determines that neither the child nor the parents have any significant connection with the jurisdiction and that the relevant evidence is no longer available. At the time of the June 18 proceeding, the court had the child's father present and about to start to exercise visitation. Both parties largely assented to the terms that resolved their disputes, which involved details that, although important to them, made no sweeping changes to the prior arrangement. At the time, therefore, the court had the relevant evidence before it.

Rea contends that the court erred in modifying the visitation order because it lacked jurisdiction. She also contends that her due process rights were violated by the taking of her unsworn testimony over the phone. We consider both points to be so lacking in merit as to not warrant much discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). When the court modified the visitation order, both parties fully participated. The court was faced with visitation issues that were immediate in the most literal sense. It was in the best interests of this family to have the matter addressed at that time, without additional delay, and for the court to retain jurisdiction until Pennsylvania formally assumed it. Neither party resided in New Jersey, but the court had the relevant evidence before it. Thus under the terms of the statute, it was proper for the court to address the dispute.