Beck v. Beck

432 A.2d 63 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married in July 1963. Their two daughters, Lauren, now age twelve, and Kirsten, now age ten, were adopted in infancy. H is a successful commercial photographer. W works as a part-time student teacher supervisor at a local college. Since February 14, 1976, the girls have resided with W subject to periodic visitation by H. H filed for divorce and visitation. The trial court, sua sponte, granted H and W joint legal and physical custody of their two adopted female children. The court found the parties to be 'sophisticated,' with a generally 'positive attitude between themselves with regard to the girls;' that H's income is sufficient to support two households; that the children's ages presented no obstacle; that the proximity of the residences would enable continuity of schooling despite changes in physical custody; that the prior visitation arrangement had been maintained 'with no difficulty whatever' between the parties; and, finally, that because the girls were adopted, they needed 'the benefit, contact, and security of both parents.' W moved for an order amending the findings and judgment on the issue of joint custody. The trial court ordered a plenary hearing on the issue of custody. A battle of the experts transpired. Three experts, a school psychologist, a clinical psychologist, and a psychiatric social worker, supported joint custody. Also, in the course of the hearing, the court for the first time met privately with the girls. As might be expected, the expert testimony on each side varied. Dr. Jerome Goodman, the expert called on behalf of W, testified that he had interviewed the children and their mother and concluded that custody should remain with W. The testimony of H's expert clinical psychologist, Dr. Leonard Abramson, was offered to establish that the father was a fit parent. Based upon an interview with H and on certain psychological tests, the doctor testified that he found H to be 'mature and well adjusted.' H offered the expert testimony of Dr. Warren Clark, a school psychologist and a proponent of such arrangements. He favored joint custody in this case based on his opinion, formed after interviewing H and the children that it would foster the children's relationship with both parents and would have a long-term beneficial impact on the girls' development as young women. In his view, because the children would become aware that their mother is their only 'real' parent in the sense of making decisions about their lives, mere visitation rights granted to a non-custodial 'zoo daddy' would not be conducive to the development of a father-daughter relationship. Noting that the children expressed opposition to the joint custody decree, Dr. Clark attributed their reaction to the fact that they misunderstood joint custody as something that would deprive them of their mother and their home. He predicted that once it went into effect, the girls would recognize the arrangement not only as retaining what they had before but as adding something more -- an additional home. H also presented the testimony of Dr. Judith Greif, a psychiatric social worker who has conducted independent research on the topic. She testified that as long as both parents are fit, 'the most important thing is to maintain the child's open and meaningful access to both parents.' Furthermore, in her opinion, it was contrary to the best interests of the children to deprive them of an adequate parent simply because the other is deemed better. Visitation, for Dr. Greif, was not 'meaningful contact.' She stressed that the continuity of relationship allowed by alternating physical custody is more important than the discontinuity of the physical environment caused by it. The court reaffirmed its order. W appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that H, as the party seeking to change the status quo, had failed to satisfy the burden of proving that 'the potentiality for serious psychological harm accompanying [implementation of the plan] will not become a reality.' It reversed and remanded the custody decree with directions to award W sole custody. H appealed.