Faucett v. Vasquez

Facts

Andrew (H) and Darianna (W) were married on January 11, 1997, and divorced on December 11, 2001. Billy, their son, was born in 1997. In 2002, the custody order granted joint legal custody, named H as the custodial parent. W was granted liberal visitation. H remarried, and the new stepmother became an additional parent. In 2008 P sought a reduction of W's parenting time as provided by the 2002 order. 

This part is most likely not in the casebook: In 2008 judge refused to reduce W's parenting time because H 'ha[d] not pointed to any change in circumstances that would warrant a change . . . .' He ordered both parties not to 'discuss the litigation with the child.' The judge also denied W's motion to be designated PPR 'without prejudice.' A 'Custody Neutral Assessment' (CNA) was ordered, and the costs of which were to be shared equally. Robert B. Haynes, Ph.D. Haynes interviewed H, who was employed by the Army, had now re-married for the third time, and lived in Burlington County with his new wife, Billy, and two stepsons. H reported no major problems with Billy's health, no behavioral problems, and no educational problems, with the exception of Billy's poor grades in mathematics, his son's 'most troubling subject.' H arranged for tutoring and enrollment in 'an early intervention program . . . .' H denied any excessive discipline or corporal punishment directed toward his son. W resided in a two-family home in Bergen County, approximately two hours from H, with her mother, brother and six-year-old son from another relationship. She too reported that Billy suffered from no significant behavioral or health problems, but claimed he was a ' 'horrible student.' ' W felt it was inappropriate for Billy 'to be home by himself after school for any length of time.' She wanted the judge to decide 'whether [Billy's] being home alone was permissible.' Haynes interviewed Billy. The child genuinely appreciated both of his parents. Nonetheless, Haynes opined that Billy 'seemed sad,' and expressed a desire to ' 'be more popular' ' during the upcoming school year. Haynes recommended that Billy receive counseling, and he urged the parties to 'open up . . . for appropriate, child-focused communication . . . for [Billy's] sake.' 

In January 2009, W sought, by order to show cause, the immediate transfer of custody because of plaintiff's impending deployment as a military reservist, initially out of state, but thereafter, overseas. The judge denied the application, finding no 'probability of immediate and irreparable harm. The judge also noted that 'defendant's contention that this deployment will immediately and adversely affect [Billy] would need further development, most likely with the benefit of a custody expert analysis.'

W moved to modify custody and parenting time and also sought child support if she was awarded custody of Billy. She noted that H's wife, who was also in the military, sometimes had to leave home during the work week, resulting in all three children being left in the care of H's parents. H opposed the motion. H also added add that W's house was a 'mess,' that several people lived with her, and that Billy 'often . . . did not have a place to sleep' when he stayed with her. The judge denied W's motion finding that there was 'no competent evidence produced by W that the child would not be well-cared for by H's spouse.  The judge increased w’s parenting time and ordered a custody evaluation. W appealed. The judge improperly granted a preference to a third-party instead of the biological mother. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.