REBECCA HALEY v. JEFFREY W. HALEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-5572-16T1

REBECCA HALEY, n/k/a REBECCA
LIVERMAN,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY W. HALEY,

     Defendant-Respondent.
___________________________________

              Submitted April 10, 2018 – Decided April 20, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Salem County,
              Docket No. FM-17-0062-16.

              Cordell Law, LLP, attorneys for appellant
              (Michelle L. Ferreri, on the brief).

              Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

        The parties' 2006 marriage produced two children, who were

born in 2008 and 2013; an August 2016 divorce judgment called for

the parties' exercise of joint legal and physical custody of the
children and expressly declined to designate a parent of primary

residence (PPR).

     Not a year elapsed before plaintiff ran into court, moving

for, among many other things, an order designating her as PPR and

modifying   the   parenting-time   schedule;   defendant   opposed   the

motion and cross-moved for other relief. In July 2017, after

hearing counsel's argument, Judge Sandra Lopez rendered a thorough

written decision and entered an order that disposed of the parties'

twenty-two requests for relief. Judge Lopez denied plaintiff's

request for PPR-designation and directed that the parties engage

in mediation regarding the existing parenting-time schedule.

     Plaintiff appeals,1 arguing in a brief that reached the page-

limit permitted by Rule 2:6-7 (requiring that the initial briefs

of parties "shall not exceed 65 pages"):

            I. TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY FAILING TO
            SCHEDULE A PLENARY HEARING AND FAILING TO
            ALLOW   PLAINTIFF'S   ATTORNEY   TO  CONDUCT
            DISCOVERY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
            ABILITY TO SUBPOENA RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION,
            CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS AND SERVE DISCOVERY,
            DESPITE THE CONFLICTING CERTIFICATIONS WHICH
            PRESENTED DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT
            REGARDING CUSTODY, PARENTING TIME, SCHOOLING
            FOR THE CHILDREN AND OTHER ISSUES.

                  A. Legal Standard.


1
 We assume without deciding that the order under review is a final
and appealable order even though it called, in part, for mediation
on one or more issues.

                                   2                            A-5572-16T1
     B.   The  Parties'    Certifications
     Clearly and Specifically Set Forth
     a Multitude of Material Facts in
     Dispute Demonstrating The Necessity
     for Scheduling a Plenary Hearing and
     Relevant Discovery.

          1. Parenting    Time   Dis-
          putes.

          2. Violations of Legal
          Custody and Children's
          Bill of Rights.

          3. School Dispute.

          4. Defendant['s] Demand
          [That] Plaintiff Fulfill
          Parenting   Responsibili-
          ties on His Days.

          5. Defendant's Violation
          of the Civil Restraints
          Order.

          6. Proof of Defendant's
          Additional Deceit in His
          Certification.

          7. When Considering the
          Totality of the Facts in
          Dispute.

II. TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY FAILING TO
SCHEDULE A PLENARY HEARING, FAILING TO ALLOW
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ABILITY TO
SUBPOENA   RELEVANT   DOCUMENTATION,   CONDUCT
DEPOSITIONS AND SERVE DISCOVERY, AND FAILING
TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO RETAIN A CUSTODY
EVALUATOR REGARDING THE CUSTODY, PARENTING
TIME AND SCHOOLING ISSUES AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANT TO COOPERATE WITH SAME DESPITE THE
PRESENTATION   OF   SUBSTANTIAL   CHANGES   IN


                      3                          A-5572-16T1
            CIRCUMSTANCE TO WARRANT A REVIEW OF CUSTODY,
            PARENTING TIME AND SCHOOLING FOR THE CHILDREN.

                 A. Legal Standard.

                 B. Plaintiff's Certifications and
                 Supporting   Proofs   Provided   the
                 Trial Court with Numerous Substan-
                 tial   Changes   in    Circumstances
                 Related to the Best Interests of the
                 Children to Warrant the Scheduling
                 of a Plenary Hearing and Ordering
                 Relevant Discovery and a Custody
                 Evaluation.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further

discussion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the

reasons provided by Judge Lopez in her thoughtful and well-reasoned

decision.

     To     be   sure,    as     Judge       Lopez   observed,    there    were

"contradict[ions]"       in    the   submissions     and   the   cross-motions

revealed the parties were "having a problem co-parenting"; the

judge also correctly recognized that the need for "[b]oth parties

. . . to be flexible and accommodating . . . if they are going to

be able to co-parent the children in a healthy way."                  But the

judge also properly determined that the judgment of divorce, which

incorporated an earlier consent order, anticipated the division

of parenting time would not necessarily be equal going forward and

that this inevitable inequality would not present grounds for a

modification of the custody arrangement or the existing parenting-


                                         4                             A-5572-16T1
time schedule. Consequently, Judge Lopez concluded – and we agree

– that the factual disputes found in the parties' motion papers

about custody and parenting time did not require an exchange of

discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

    Affirmed.




                                5                         A-5572-16T1