Morgan v. Morga

12 A.3d 192 (2011)

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

M and F were married and had two daughters. They divorced, and the court order provided for joint legal custody of the children, with M as the 'parent of primary residence,' and detailed a parenting-time schedule. In anticipation of an application by M to move with the children to Massachusetts, F filed a motion seeking a re-determination of custody based on 'a substantial change in circumstances.' M motioned to allow relocation. The trial judge denied F's motion to re-determine custody because there was no change in circumstances from the time of the divorce. The judge also rejected F's contention that he and M actually had a de facto shared custody arrangement. In ruling, the judge declared M to be the parent of primary residence but denied M's permission to move the children to Massachusetts. M retained a forensic psychologist, Dr. Edwin Rosenberg, to perform a relocation evaluation. F retained a clinical psychologist, Dr. Amie Wolf-Mehlman, to evaluate the issues. One shrink said M was ok and the other said she was emotionally unstable and concluded that the move should not be permitted. F moved in limine for the application of the 'best interests' standard to the impending relocation hearing based on his view that he and M actually had de facto shared custody of the children, notwithstanding the PSA. The trial court denied F's in limine motion. The relocation hearing took place from May 22 to June 4, 2007, and the trial court entered an order denying M's motion for permission to relocate with the children to Massachusetts. The decision was based on the opinion that M was 'emotionally volatile.' The judge also found that F’s relationship could not be maintained and the move would be inimical to the girls' interests. Both parties appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, permitting M to relocate. F filed a motion for reconsideration. Included was information that M's engagement had ended. The motion was denied. M appealed.