New Jersey Family Law Blog

A child's therapist can be added to a domestic violence restraining order

In the recent unpublished case of Miller v. Tafaro, A-1189-05T1 (App. Div. Aug. 16, 2006) the defendant, husband appealed several issues, one of which was the motion judge’s decision to add the children’s therapist, Ms Roll to the domestic violence restraining order that had earlier been granted to the plaintiff wife. The appellate division held that there was:

"no misapplication of discretion by the motion judge in amending the domestic violence FRO to encompass Ms. Roll or any other therapist of the children within its protection. The record on appeal amply demonstrates that defendant's repeated contacts with the children's therapists have resulted in those therapists withdrawing from providing services to the children. In fact, until the amended FRO was entered, Ms. Roll had stopped providing counseling services to the children due to the nature of defendant's contacts with her."

In support of this the appellate division cited to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29b(3) which allows the court to enter an order to "protect the safety and well-being of the plaintiff and minor children.”

From a blog writers perspective this case is interesting because it has also been written up by the Family Law Prof Blog in a post with the title, "Case Law Development: Child Support Obligation for Medical Expenses Includes Costs of Parent Coordinator." I personally think they have misread the opinion.

In this case, defendant challenged his obligation to pay his 71% share of the costs of Ms Roll who was employed not as a parenting co-ordinator but as a therapist. He argued that therapy was not a medical expense within the terms of the parties’ property settlement agreement (PSA). An argument the appellate division found to be “disingenuous” given the fact that the parties’ agreed to a "broad" definition in their PSA. For me on reading the case, the issue of being able to add the children’s therapist to a FRO was more of interest from a practice perspective.

The moral of the story is that there is no substitute for reading the case yourself as each blogger has different perspectives and can view the same case differently as to what is noteworthy and should be drawn to their readers attention.

"Take me up on appeal"

In the recent unpublished decision in Gordon v. Levick, A-5656-04T2 (App. Div. July 13, 2006), the plaintiff attempted to point out to the motion judge that there was insufficient backup to defendant's support claim of $56,287.52 for tuition, school, camp, clothing and unreimbursed medical expenses only to be told “I’m not gonna let you interrupt…. take me up on appeal.”

‘Where there are factual disputes, the moving party bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the expenses she is claiming are both legitimate and reasonable. A mere listing of the purported expenses, without more, is insufficient. An evidentiary hearing is necessary under such circumstances before a motion judge can make a fair and reasonable determination on the disputed issues. ”

Accardi v. Accardi, 369 N.J. Super. 75, 87 (App. Div. 2004).

The motion judge in Gordon v. Levick asserted that all the expense issues had been previously addressed in a prior order, however the appellate division disagreed and citing Accardi, remanded for a plenary hearing to explore the factual issues in dispute as to what had in fact been paid and what was owed by the plaintiff.