Preview:

a1870-06.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(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
The status of this decision is unpublished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(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1870-06T21870-06T2
MAGDA CINTRON PEREZ,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VIDAL GUZMAN SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted July 31, 2007 - Decided
Before Judges Gilroy and Lihotz.
On appear from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex
County, Docket No. FM-07-2677-06.
Vidal Guzman Sanchez, appellant pro se.
Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgart & Ben-Asher, attorneys for respondent (Eugenie F. Temmler,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a Family Division custody order entered on October 20, 2006. Defendant maintains the trial
court erred in denying his request for equal physical custody. We affirm.
The parties are now divorced and have one child, who is age three. When plaintiff separated from defendant, on
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1870-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:54 PM]




a1870-06.opn.html
August 28, 2006, she left the former marital home, taking the child. Plaintiff's new residence is approximately one-
half mile from defendant's home. Custody mediation was unsuccessful, as plaintiff disagreed with defendant's
request for shared physical custody. Although defendant was able to see the child everyday, he specifically desired
more than the one overnight visit per week that he had been spending with the child.
In reviewing defendant's motion, Judge Coleman determined no benefit would result from a best interests
investigation, R. 5:8-1, which involves a review and report from a family probation officer who,
[j]ust goes to the homes and looks at the homes, . . . [and] has a talk with you . . .                                       . The
child is being properly cared for . . .                                                                                      . You both have homes. You're both fit parents. I
don't see a best interests investigation coming back with anything different than that.
In further probing the parties' positions on custody, Judge Coleman considered their current practice, which had
been in effect for over one year, and which plaintiff asserted was working well without disruption or discomfort for
the child. He then concluded:
The child has to live somewhere and it's very difficult to take a child that age and split
the child physically between two places, notwithstanding the fact that they live in the
same town. There's no point and I believe that it is not in the best interest of this child,
who is just two years of age, to attempt to spend 50 percent of her time with you and
50 percent of her time with [her mother].
I'm giving you joint legal custody, which gives you the right to have a part in decision[-
]making that's made concerning the child. You've got to be spending time with the
child, which I think is sufficient [for] a bond with the child and [to] develop a
relationship with the child. I don't see the need to give you 50[]percent [physical]
custody of the child.
Although Judge Coleman granted defendant's request for joint legal custody, he awarded physical custody to
plaintiff and awarded parenting time to defendant, which included: every Monday and Wednesday after school until
dinner and every Friday 7 p.m. overnight to Saturday 7 p.m.
The scope of our review is limited. "The general rule is that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when
supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Moreover,
"[b]ecause of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord
deference to family court factfinding." Id. at 413. "Trial court findings are ordinarily not disturbed unless 'they are so
wholly un-supportable as to result in a denial of justice.'" Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J. 464, 475
(1988) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974)); Roe v. Roe, 253 N. J.
Super. 418, 432 (App. Div. 1992).
"Custody issues are resolved using a best interests analysis that gives weight to the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-
4(c)." Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). Family Part judges are frequently called upon to make
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1870-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:54 PM]




a1870-06.opn.html
difficult and sensitive decisions regarding the safety and well-being of children. Our review of the record discerns
that Judge Coleman's determination to award legal custody to both parents with physical custody to only one and
liberal visitation rights to the other gave proper consideration to and afforded protection of defendant's statutory
right "to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing." N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.
We find no misapplication of discretion or denial of justice in the trial court's decision. Judge Coleman reviewed the
pleadings and patiently considered the arguments of the parties, making his findings and conclusions after taking
into account the law and the particular circumstances of the case before him. See Higgins v. Polk, 14 N.J. 490, 493
(1954).
Defendant's suggestion that an "award of joint physical custody to both parents . . . will be the only way to preserve
the relationship between them and their child" is unsupported. "The ability of parents to put aside their personal
differences and work together for the best interests of their child is the true measure of a healthy parent-child
relationship." Nufrio v. Nufrio, 341 N.J. Super. 548, 550 (App. Div. 2001). Defendant presented no evidence to justify
a change in the parties' past practices, to which their young daughter had adequately adjusted. Absent a showing
that an award of joint physical custody served the child's best interests, the determination to deny such a request
will be upheld. See Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 601 (1995).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
5
A-1870-06T2
August 9, 2007
0x01 graphic
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1870-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:54 PM]




a1870-06.opn.html
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/a1870-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:58:54 PM]

Download a1870-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law