Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2107-12T3
01-27-2014
EDWARD J. BELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTINE M. BELLER, Defendant-Respondent.
Joseph A. Manzo, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Harris and Guadagno.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-1091-09.
Joseph A. Manzo, attorney for appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Edward J. Beller appeals from the November 30, 2012 order of the Family Part granting Christine M. Beller's motion to enroll the parties' two children in the Roxbury school district We affirm.
Edward and Christine were married in 2001 and divorced in 2010. Two children were born of the marriage, S.E.B. in 2002 and R.D.B. in 2005. The judgment of divorce incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA), resolving most of their disputed issues, but the parties did not agree where the children would attend school after the 2010-2011 school year. The MSA provided that the parties would attempt to resolve the dispute with a parent coordinator prior to bringing an application before the court.
In July 2012, Christine filed a motion seeking permission to transfer the children from the Denville school system, where they were then enrolled, to the Roxbury district where she had moved after the divorce. Christine submitted a report dated August 9, 2012, from Ann Ordway, who had served as the parties' parenting coordinator since the summer of 2010. Ms. Ordway noted the "pros and cons of each option" but supported transferring the children to the Roxbury district. The Family Part heard oral argument on the motion on September 5, 2012. With the school year about to begin, the judge granted Christine's motion without prejudice, subject to a hearing, and both children were enrolled in Roxbury.
On October 26, 2012, the court conducted a hearing. Ms. Ordway testified that she based her recommendation supporting the transfer on recent events affecting both parties. Christine was living in Roxbury and had a "more stable situation" than Edward, who continued to live in Denville. Edward had remarried, but he and his wife, Laurie Sebastian-Beller were planning to divorce. Ms. Ordway described their relationship as acrimonious, and their communication, very poor.
Ms. Ordway noted that Edward's prior counsel sent a letter to the Denville school district suggesting that Christine was mentally ill and had psychiatric issues. According to Ms. Ordway, that caused the Denville school district concern for Christine's stability. On one occasion, the school refused to release the children to Christine's mother, as the school was under the incorrect impression that Edward had sole custody of the children. When Christine considered suing the school over the issue, her relationship with the school deteriorated further to the point where the superintendent and the school principal refused to speak with Ms. Ordway out of concern that there would be a lawsuit. As a result, Christine had very little contact with the Denville school district.
On November 30, 2012, the Family Part entered an order granting Christine's motion to enroll both children in the Roxbury School District. In an accompanying statement of reasons, the judge indicated that, at the request of both parties, she interviewed the children and permitted the parties to submit proposed questions. Based on her interview with the children and the recommendation of Ms. Ordway, the judge determined that the children would remain enrolled in the Roxbury school district.
On appeal, Edward claims the court failed to follow the prevailing case law pertaining to relocation of a child's school and ignored the governing legal factors that control the analysis of where a child should attend school when the parents cannot agree. Relying on our decision in Levine v. Levine, 322 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 75 (2000), Edward argues that the court ignored the analytical factors cited in that case and placed inappropriate and inordinate emphasis on his pending divorce. Edward further claims that the court gave inappropriate consideration to the parenting coordinator's observation that Christine felt alienated from the Denville school system.
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, 201 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; see also Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). It is against these standards that we review the decision of the Family Part judge.
Edward relies on Levine in arguing that the Family Part erred in ordering the change to the Roxbury district, as there was a lack of proof that the children's interests were not being served in their present school system. In Levine, we affirmed the conclusion of the trial court supported by two experts that the child would continue to attend school in her current district through the fifth grade but found the court abused its discretion in directing that she be enrolled in another district from the sixth through the twelfth grade. Levine, supra, 322 N.J. Super. at 565. We found an absence of proof to suggest that the child's best interests were not being served in her current school district. Id. at 566.
Levine is distinguishable from the facts here. In Levine, both experts agreed that the child was thriving in her current school. Ibid. The expert called by the mother, who sought a transfer, did not conclude that it was in the child's best interests to change schools. Id. at 561—62. The expert called by the father, who sought to keep his daughter in her current school system, testified that the child wished to remain in her current school, and he felt that it would not be in her best interests to change schools. Id. at 562—63.
Here, Ms. Ordway, the only expert to testify, favored enrolling the children in Roxbury. In accepting her recommendations, the court found her to be "a compelling and credible witness." The court noted that Ms. Ordway's primary reason for favoring Roxbury over Denville was that
Christine had a more stable situation due to the fact that Ed Beller and [Laurie] Sebastian were getting divorced and the home had been somewhat acrimonious. Moreover, it was her opinion that Christine Beller was not fully integrated into the Denville Township School and at least some of the reason for that was because Edward Beller had forwarded information about Christine's mental health to school officials. It was Ms. Ordway's observation that Mr. Beller took steps to alienate Ms. Beller from the school. He represented to school officials that he had sole rather than joint custody.
A parent's ability to communicate and interact with a child's teachers and school officials is necessary to be fully involved in a child's education. It is undisputed that Christine's relationship with Denville school personnel was negatively impacted as a result of Edward's counsel's letter claiming that Christine had psychiatric issues.
Finally, the court conducted in camera interviews with both children. Although the results of the interviews are not included in the record, the court based its decision to continue their enrollment in the Roxbury system, in part, on the responses of the children during those interviews.
We are satisfied that the conclusion of the Family Part, that the transfer of both children to the Roxbury district was in their best interests, is supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence.
Affirmed
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION