Law Lessons from PARCEL v. PARCEL, Appellate Division, A-5087-05T1, June 1, 2007:

The preference of a child in a custody dispute is only one of many considerations to be taken into account by the trial judge in the “best interests” formulation. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4c; Palermo v. Palermo, 164 N.J. Super. 492, 498 (App. Div. 1978); see also Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 497 (1981); Laverne v. Laverne, 148 N.J. Super. 267, 271-72 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 28 (1977). It is neither controlling nor conclusive in the determination. Callen v. Gill, 7 N.J. 312, 319 (1951); Sheehan v. Sheehan, 38 N.J. Super. 120, 126 (App. Div. 1955). Indeed, a trial judge is not bound by a child’s preference of one parent over another as the judge is only required to give “due weight to the child’s preference.” W.W. v. I.M., 231 N.J. Super. 495, 511 (App. Div. 1989) (quoting Laverne, 148 N.J. Super. at 271), appeal dism’d, 121 N.J. 630 (1990). The Legislature has expressly declared that the State’s public policy is: “to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parties have separated or dissolved their marriage and that it is in the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy.” [N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.]

NOTE: Legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.