Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1413-12T3
06-09-2014
CRAIG STATT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KAREN KNOX-STATT, Defendant-Appellant.
Karen Knox-Statt, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fisher and O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-416-07.
Karen Knox-Statt, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
The parties were married in 2001 and divorced in 2008. Their marriage produced one daughter, now twelve years old. On being divorced, the parties shared legal custody, with defendant obtaining the designation of parent of primary residential custody and plaintiff obtaining visitation rights.
In an earlier appeal regarding other decisions made in their continuing post-judgment disputes, we noted that plaintiff had remarried and relocated to Pennsylvania. We also observed that, in 2009, plaintiff wrote to advise defendant, "with a very heavy heart," that he would reduce the time he spent with their daughter to one week per year in the hope such a change would end the parties' conflict; plaintiff emphatically stated in that same letter, however, that he had "no desire to abandon and relinquish" his right to visitation. The trial judge thereafter denied defendant's motion for sole custody and a termination of plaintiff's visitation rights, and we affirmed. Stat v. Knox-Stat, No. A-3102-10 (App. Div. Feb. 22, 2012).
In the wake of that determination, plaintiff moved in the trial court for additional parenting time; defendant opposed that motion and cross-moved for other relief, including an adjustment of the child support obligation and the right to declare the child as a dependent on her tax return. For reasons orally expressed on the return date of these motions - those reasons were further amplified in his July 25, 2012 order - the judge imposed a parenting time schedule and denied most of the relief sought by defendant. Defendant's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 24, 2012.
Defendant appeals the order of July 25, 2012, and the order of September 24, 2012, arguing:
A. THE COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT PLAINTIFF ABANDONED HIS PARENTING TIME
RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF 43 MONTHS AND ACTUALLY WAS REQUESTING TO REDUCE HIS VISITATION AND THUS ENTERED A VISITATION SCHEDULE THAT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE SAME OR REQUIRE ANY EVALUATION OF PLAINTIFF.
B. THE COURT FAILED TO ADJUST CHILD SUPPORT BASED UPON ACTUAL VISITATION EVEN AFTER THE COURT OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED A VISITATION SCHEDULE AND FURTHER FAILED TO REQUIRE CONTRIBUTION BY PLAINTIFF TOWARDS CHILD CARE EXPENSES OR OTHERWISE GIVE DEFENDANT CREDIT FOR SAME IN ANY CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATION.
C. THE COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR TAX CREDITS OBTAINED BY PLAINTIFF IN CLAIMING THE PARTIES' CHILD AS A DEPEND[E]NT AND GRANTED DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT SHE BE ENTITLED TO TAKE CHILD AS A DEPEND[E]NT EACH YEAR.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The issues raised in the trial court motions were matters best left to the judge's sound discretion, which we will not disturb absent the judge's departure from the factual record or from that which constitutes the child's best interests. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998); see also Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J. Super. 514, 524 (App. Div. 2006). After carefully reviewing the record in light of the issues raised, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's rulings.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION