Terry v. Terry
270 N.J. Super. 105, 636 A.2d 579 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's child custody determination must be reversed when the court fails to make specific findings of fact by analyzing the statutory criteria enumerated in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 and fails to articulate why its decision is in the child's best interests, especially when the ruling contradicts the recommendation of a court-appointed expert.
Facts:
- James A. Terry and Theresa Terry married in August 1987, and their daughter, Davina, was born in February 1988.
- In October 1988, James Terry struck Theresa Terry in the face.
- In December 1988, Theresa Terry left the marital home in Newark, New Jersey with Davina and moved to her mother's home in Pennsylvania.
- After a period of court-supervised visitation, the parties agreed to an alternating one-month physical custody arrangement in August 1990.
- In early September 1990, the parties briefly reconciled, but separated again in October 1990.
- In December 1990, Theresa Terry moved with Davina from Pennsylvania to Smyrna, Tennessee, without informing James Terry of her new location.
- James Terry located Theresa and Davina in April 1991 and, through court action in Tennessee, obtained temporary physical custody of Davina.
- From April 19, 1991, until the trial court's final custody decision on July 29, 1992, Davina resided continuously with James Terry, a period of approximately 15 months.
Procedural Posture:
- James A. Terry filed a complaint seeking custody of his daughter, Davina, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Family Part, Essex County (trial court).
- Theresa Terry filed a counterclaim, also seeking custody.
- The trial court entered a series of temporary (pendente lite) orders governing visitation and custody while the case was pending.
- A custody trial was held, at which a court-appointed psychologist testified and recommended that James Terry retain physical custody.
- The trial court entered a dual judgment of divorce, awarding joint legal custody but transferring residential custody of Davina to Theresa Terry.
- Subsequently, the trial court entered a separate order requiring James Terry to pay child support.
- James A. Terry, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed both the custody judgment and the child support order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Theresa Terry is the defendant-respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error when it awards residential custody of a child without making specific findings of fact related to the statutory criteria in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 and articulating why its decision serves the child's best interests, particularly when its ruling contradicts an expert's recommendation?
Opinions:
Majority - Kleiner, J.S.C.
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to base its custody decision on a specific analysis of statutory factors and the child's best interest. The trial court's decision to transfer residential custody from James Terry to Theresa Terry was inadequate because it did not analyze the evidence according to the mandatory factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. The court failed to articulate why changing custody after the child had lived with her father for fifteen months was in her best interest. The trial judge appeared to base the decision primarily on the father's lack of credibility regarding spousal abuse and the mother's improved financial situation, rather than a comprehensive assessment of all statutory factors. Furthermore, the court rejected the recommendation of the court-appointed expert, who favored custody for the father, without providing a sufficient explanation for its contrary conclusion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the procedural mandate that trial courts in New Jersey must explicitly justify child custody decisions by referencing the specific statutory criteria. It establishes that a court's failure to 'show its work' by connecting its factual findings to the legal standards is grounds for reversal. The decision emphasizes that while factors like domestic violence and financial stability are important, they cannot be considered in isolation. The ruling provides a clear basis for appellate review, ensuring custody awards are based on a holistic analysis of the child's best interests rather than a judge's singular impression of the parents.
