Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3412-13T4
10-09-2015
CATHERINE L. VENTIMIGLIA, f/k/a PANDELO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUSTIN C. PANDELO, Defendant-Appellant.
Justin C. Pandelo, appellant pro se. Cynthia D. Sora, attorney for respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Currier. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-332-11. Justin C. Pandelo, appellant pro se. Cynthia D. Sora, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM
This is a post-judgment matrimonial matter. Defendant appeals from an order in which the trial judge found that Florida, and not New Jersey, was the home state of the children pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-53 to -95, and declined to exercise further jurisdiction over custody and parenting issues. We affirm.
The parties were divorced in September 2010. In April 2012, the parties entered into a consent order (the April 2012 consent order) that expressly stated, "The parties agree that Plaintiff shall remain primary residential parent and shall be able to move to Fort Meyers [sic], Florida with the minor children as of April 4, 2012." Notably, the April 2012 consent order did not state New Jersey retained jurisdiction over the custody matter.
The parties also entered into a consent order, dated March 30, 2012, that plainly anticipated plaintiff's move to Florida with the children. The order provided that plaintiff would not prosecute violations of a final restraining order obtained against defendant, stating "[h]er concerns regarding safety will be ameliorated by her move to a different state." The consent order also provided that the collection of defendant's $15,700 in child support arrears would be suspended indefinitely. The order also stated, "Defendant's current monthly child support order of $1000.00 shall be terminated in New Jersey on the date of this Order," with defendant agreeing to the reinstatement of child support within one year "through a Court of competent jurisdiction in the state where parties may reside at the time of the one year expiration date." --------
There was additional motion practice. The court scheduled a hearing for January 27, 2014 to determine whether New Jersey remained the appropriate forum to have jurisdiction over custody and parenting time issues or whether the court should decline further jurisdiction in favor of Florida, where the parties had engaged in some litigation. At that hearing, defendant expressed his support for a transfer of jurisdiction to Florida. He disputed statements made by plaintiff's counsel that the courts in Florida lacked the familiarity with the matter that the trial judge had, and even volunteered that he had been in contact with the court in Florida.
As of the January 2014 hearing, the children had resided in Florida for nearly two years. Describing this as a "high conflict custody case" that required referrals to resources in the state where the children reside, the trial judge found Florida to be the more appropriate forum for the litigation of custody and parenting issues. Although he did not make specific findings of each of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-71(b), his statements to the parties in colloquy and in rendering his decision reflect an awareness and evaluation of the pertinent factors. S.B. v. G.M.B., 434 N.J. Super. 463, 472 (App. Div. 2014) (stating the determination to decline jurisdiction in favor of another state "requires a consideration of whether 'the court of another State is in a better position to make the custody determination, taking into consideration the relative circumstances of the parties'") (citation omitted).
In his appeal, defendant presents the following issues:
POINT I
TRIAL COURT COMMIT[T]ED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO AWARD APPELLANT SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY AS SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE WAS CLEARLY PRESENT.
POINT II
TRIAL COURT COMMIT[T]ED A REVERSIBLE ERROR VIOLATING THE N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 & 2, (NJCRA), AND 42 U.S.C. 1983, (FCRA), OBSTRUCTING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO FAIR AND EQUITABLE DUE PROCESS RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTING TO A FRAUD UPON THE COURT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
These arguments are unrelated to the order from which defendant appeals. Defendant has presented no cogent argument that the trial judge erred in entering the February 2014 order.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION