The trial court determined that in their complaint, supplemented by their testimony, plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie showing that the child would be harmed unless visitation were ordered. It found that plaintiffs had improperly instituted litigation before defendant had denied visitation with finality, and dismissed the complaint. Relying on its decision addressing case management issues in grandparent visitation litigation in R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J.Super. 113, 82 A.3d 305 (App.Div.2014), the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's determination and remanded for the trial court's reevaluation of the sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaint.We reaffirm the holding of Moriarty that, in order to overcome the presumption of parental autonomy in the raising of children, grandparents who bring visitation actions under N.J.S.A. 9:2–7.1 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that denial of visitation will harm the child.

"The summary nature of [an FD] action is intended ‘to accomplish the salutary purpose of swiftly and effectively disposing of matters which lend themselves to summary treatment ....’ " R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 133, 82 A.3d 305 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Washington Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555, 564, 7 A.3d 225 (App. Div. 2010), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 318, 15 A.3d 326 (2011) ).

We review the trial court's dismissal of a complaint seeking grandparent visitation de novo. R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 142 (App. Div. 2014). In doing so, we owe no deference to the "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts."

When a "trial court dismisse[s] plaintiff['s] complaint as a matter of law, our review of the court's decision is de novo." R.K. v. D.L. , 434 N.J.Super. 113, 142, 82 A .3d 305 (App. Div. 2014) (citing Smerling v. Harrah's Entm't, Inc. , 389 N.J.Super. 181, 186, 912 A .2d 168 (App. Div. 2006) ). "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Zaman v. Felton , 219 N.J. 199, 216, 98 A .3d 503 (2014) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan , 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A .2d 1230 (1995) ).

A "fact-sensitive analysis addressing all of the relevant statutory factors is required." R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 151 (App. Div. 2014). In his oral and written statements of reasons, the judge acknowledged that Ben's application was made in good faith.

We review the trial court's dismissal of the complaint de novo. R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 142 (App. Div. 2014). In doing so, we owe no deference to the "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts."

PER CURIAM In this grandparent/sibling visitation case brought by plaintiff pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, the trial court dismissed the complaint without conducting a case management conference to address the issues this court identified in R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 137-40 (App. Div. 2014). We thus reverse and remand this matter for the trial court to reexamine plaintiff's complaint to determine the viability of the relief requested after adhering to the procedures we described in R.K.

In addition, the New Jersey Superior Court in R.K. v. D.L., Jr., discussed the use of summary proceedings in family law matters. 434 N.J.Super. 113, 82 A.3d 305, 317 (2014). The court explained that “summary actions are expedited proceedings governed by” relevant provisions within the New Jersey rules of procedure.

Typically, the court handles an FD matter in a summary fashion to promote the "'purpose of swiftly and effectively disposing of matters which lend themselves to summary treatment.'" W.M., 467 N.J.Super. at 233 (quoting R.K. v. D.L., Jr., 434 N.J.Super. 113, 133 (App. Div. 2014)).

Typically, the court handles an FD matter in a summary fashion to promote the "purpose of swiftly and effectively disposing of matters which lend themselves to summary treatment." W.M., 467 N.J.Super. at 233 (quoting R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J.Super. 113, 133 (App. Div. 2014)).