Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5111-12T1
07-16-2014
K.W., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.T., Defendant-Appellant.
Grant J. Robinson, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FD-03-0504-12.
Grant J. Robinson, attorney for appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant A.T. appeals from an order entered by the Family Part denying his motion to dismiss an order entered by the court on October 6, 2011, directing that "[a]ll issues of custody, support and visitation to be addressed under docket number FD-03-504-12[.]" All of these issues had been previously adjudicated by the court under a domestic violence complaint filed by plaintiff against defendant under docket number FV-03- 113-12, resulting in a final restraining order (FRO) against defendant. The administrative order dated October 6, 2011, which defendant challenges here, merely administratively reclassified the case from a domestic violence case to a non-dissolution dispute under an "FD" docket number.
This administrative reclassification was triggered by plaintiff's decision to voluntarily withdraw the restraints against defendant awarded to her by the court under docket number FV-03-113-12. This is expressly provided under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29d:
Upon good cause shown, any final order may be dissolved or modified upon application to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, but only if the judge who dissolves or modifies the order is the same judge who entered the order, or has available a complete record of the hearing or hearings on which the order was based.
Under the policy approved and established by our Supreme Court, once the restraints have been dissolved, a Family Part Judge must take the appropriate steps to apprise plaintiff of the ramifications of her or his decision. New Jersey Domestic Violence Procedures Manual, § 4.19.2 (October 2008), available at www.judiciary.state.nj.us/family/dvprcman.pdf (last visited July 7, 2014). Thereafter, the judge shall take the appropriate administrative action to preserve the parts of the original FRO that, although ordered ancillary to the restraints, remain in effect after the dissolution:
The court should determine whether an order for child support, custody and/or visitation was entered as part of the FRO and if so, determine whether the victim wants the relief to continue. If so, these provisions should be made part of an FD order, then and there, without undue waiting and refiling by the plaintiff.
[Id. at § 4.19.3. ]
The Domestic Violence Procedures Manual "is issued jointly by the Judiciary and the Department of Law and Public Safety to provide a seamless system of case handling." This document guides the Family Part in the procedural implementation of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and has been cited as an authoritative source by the Supreme Court, J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 480 (2011), as well as this court, N.B. v. S.K., 435 N.J. Super. 298, 309 (App. Div. 2014). The administrative reclassification from an "FV" to an "FD" docket number that occurred here is expressly sanctioned by the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual.
Defendant's arguments challenging this administrative reclassification as a violation of his due process rights lacks sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
See Letter dated July 2004, from Chief Justice Deborah Poritz and Attorney General Peter Harvey, included as part of the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual.