Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4374-12T2
06-30-2015
CHRISTINA M. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HECTOR R. CORRALES, Defendant-Respondent.
Christina M. Rivera, appellant pro se. Hector R. Corrales, respondent pro se.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-691-12. Christina M. Rivera, appellant pro se. Hector R. Corrales, respondent pro se. PER CURIAM
The parties were married in February 2009, separated one month later, and were divorced in May 2010. They have one son and have engaged in substantial post-judgment motion practice concerning visitation.
The trial court entered an order dated April 5, 2013, which addressed a motion filed by defendant and plaintiff's cross-motion. In her cross-motion, plaintiff asked the court to grant the following relief: (a) deny all defendant's requests, (b) sanction defendant for perjurious statements contained in his motion, (c) recalculate child support, (d) order defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, (e) limit defendant's visitation to supervised visitation until he proves he can provide a stable and loving home environment for their son, (f) order defendant to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), (g) order defendant to undergo domestic violence counseling, and (h) award plaintiff filing fee of $30.
The order entered by the court denied virtually all of defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's motion in its entirety. In this appeal, plaintiff challenges the denial of her requests to limit defendant to supervised visitation and to order defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. In denying each of these requests, the trial court noted that these prayers for relief had been previously denied by another judge "and no new proofs have been submitted to support Plaintiff's request." Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying her requests on that basis, and presents the following argument in this appeal:
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE TEXT MESSAGES FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT AS NEW PROOF AS SAID MESSAGES WERE NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BEFORE THEIR INCLUSION IN THE APPELLANT'S MARCH 30, 2013, MOTION TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
In her brief, plaintiff describes the contents of text messages sent to her after March 1, 2013, which, she claims, support her requests for a psychiatric evaluation and supervised visitation. According to plaintiff, defendant's text messages state, "the real reason he hasn't seen the minor child or any of his other children was because his wife would not allow it," "he admits to domestic violence between him and his wife in the form of alienation from everyone he knows," "he and his wife have been fighting all weekend," and "he needs help for his many issues, seeks help from the Appellant, and agrees to supervised visitation."
Plainly, even if defendant is experiencing marital discord, that alone does not warrant an order requiring a psychiatric evaluation or supervised visitation. But, more important, a review of the actual text messages fails to support plaintiff's characterization of them. The messages reflect repeated requests from defendant to see his son, repeated confrontational and accusatory responses from plaintiff, and expressions of regret by defendant. The references to defendant's alleged need for help on many issues come not in the form of admissions from defendant but in a demand by plaintiff. In response to defendant's request, "will u let me b in his life?" plaintiff issued demands: defendant had to go to AA, go to a therapist who will report to the court and her, obtain domestic violence and anger management counseling, and prove he is stable and can provide a stable healthy environment for their son. We reject plaintiff's argument that these text messages provided ample support for the relief she requested.
In reviewing a decision of a family court, we "defer to the factual findings of the trial court," N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008), in recognition of the "family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 2 01 N.J. 328, 343 (2010); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). It is only "when the trial court's conclusions are so clearly mistaken or wide of the mark" that we will intervene and make our own findings "to ensure that there is not a denial of justice." E.P., supra, 196 N.J. at 104 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the evidence proffered by plaintiff, we are satisfied the trial court was not mistaken, let alone "clearly mistaken," in denying her requests.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION