Preview:

a1114-07.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1114-07T11114-07T1
BERNADETTE BATTLE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GERARD PRIDGEN,
Defendant,
and
CHERRY BURKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted September 25, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Fuentes and Gilroy.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
Docket No. FD-09-1240-97.
Cherry Burke, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1114-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:23:16 PM]




a1114-07.opn.html
Defendant Cherry Burke is the biological mother of a girl identified here as "K." The child was born in September
1992, and is now sixteen years old. Plaintiff Bernadette Battle is Burke's sister. Defendant Gerard Pridgen is K's
putative biological father, although his paternity has not been confirmed through genetic testing.
On November 7, 1996, the Family Part entered an order granting custody of K to her aunt Bernadette Battle.
K has resided with Battle since that date, approximately twelve years. On May 23, 2007, Burke filed a complaint
seeking to regain custody of her daughter. On July 10, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of
prosecution.
Burke re-filed the complaint the following day. The complaint included a certification from Burke in which she
stated: "I would like custody of my daughter [K] who doesn't like where she is living and would like to be with me."
On August 2, 2007, the matter came before the Family Part; Burke, Battle, and Pridgen all appeared pro se.
Battle testified that she had permitted K to stay with her mother over the summer. The child, now a teenager,
wants to live with Burke because she resents Battle's strict rules, i.e., she must be home by 9:00 p.m. After
unsuccessfully trying to get Burke to respond to his questions, the trial judge stated: "Ms. Burke is not being
responsive. The complaint will be dismissed. Custody will remain with Ms. Battle. Mr. Pridgen can make application
for a paternity test if he feels it is necessary."
Burke now appeals, filing a single-page letter in lieu of a brief. In this letter, Burke emphasizes that she never
abandoned her daughter and wants to take complete responsibility for her. She claims that she is gainfully
employed, and has her own residence. The record does not contain a copy of the 1996 order awarding Battle
custody of K. We are therefore unable to determine whether Burke's current circumstances are significantly different
from 1996. Indeed, Burke, as the appellant, has not articulated a basis for us to interfere with the trial court's ruling.
The burden of proof is on the party seeking to modify a child's custody arrangement. Cosme v. Figueroa, 258 N.J.
Super. 333, 338 (Ch. Div. 1992). Burke did not present sufficient evidence before the Family Part to meet her burden
of proof.
Affirmed.
The order entered by the court that same day states that Burke's application for a change of custody is denied; the
order does not mention that the complaint was dismissed.
(continued)
(continued)
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1114-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:23:16 PM]




a1114-07.opn.html
3
A-1114-07T1
November 3, 2008
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1114-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:23:16 PM]

Download a1114-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law