Law Lessons from FINAMORE v. ARONSON, 382 N.J. Super. 514, 522 (App. Div. 2006), A-3689-04T2, February 2, 2006:

Orders defining a parent’s right with respect to contact with his child are subject to future revision depending on a showing of changed circumstances. Voit v. Voit, 317 N.J. Super. 103, 121 (Ch. Div. 1998); see also Nufrio v. Nufrio, 341 N.J. Super. 548 (App. Div. 2001). Modification of the order may be appropriate if the moving party shows the modification requested is in the best interests of the child. Todd v. Sheridan, 268 N.J. Super. 387, 398 (App. Div. 1993); Mastropole v. Mastropole, 181 N.J. Super. 130, 136 (App. Div. 1981). Similarly, a restriction of, or condition placed upon, a parent’s visitation rights, must also be controlled by the best interests of the child. Sacharow, 177 N.J. at 80. The child’s “best interest” is fostered when both parents are involved with the child, assuring him of frequent and continuing contact with both parties. See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

When parents are additionally involved in domestic violence, the need to protect the “non-abusive spouse” is one consideration to be weighed by the court when evaluating the entry of an order that impacts the parent-child relationship. The Act mandates the “order shall protect the safety and well-being of the [victim of domestic violence] and minor children and shall specify the place and frequency of parenting time. Parenting time arrangements shall not compromise any other remedy provided by the court by requiring or encouraging contact” between the parties. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29b(3). While striking this balance the court must keep sight of the benchmark of the best interest of the child. Sacharow, 177 N.J. at 80.

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin