Borys v. Borys

35 Citing cases

  1. Nehra v. Uhlar

    168 N.J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 1979)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing that the children's "welfare should not be sacrificed on the altar of judicial punishment of a parent for her wrongdoing in removing the children from a foreign jurisdiction, or in violating the order of a foreign court"

    We granted a stay of that order pending disposition of the appeal, and also appointed George Warren as guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the children. Judge Saunders filed a comprehensive opinion in which he concluded that although the New Jersey court had jurisdiction to determine custody, the circumstances relating to the mother's unlawful removal of the children from Michigan and the custody determinations in favor of the father by the Michigan court and the New York Court of Appeals warranted a refusal to exercise such jurisdiction, citing Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103 (1978). In granting summary judgment the judge denied the mother's application for a plenary hearing, which was sought in order to determine whether the change of custody at this time would in fact be in the best interests of the children.

  2. E.E.B. v. D.A

    89 N.J. 595 (N.J. 1982)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that the UCCJA does not contemplate blind obedience to home state jurisdiction

    They commenced the New Jersey proceeding only after the Ohio courts declined to order a best interest hearing. We granted certification to re-examine the jurisdiction of New Jersey courts in interstate custody disputes in light of the significant changes in both federal and state legislation since our decision in Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103 (1978). We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division that the New Jersey courts may conduct a best interest hearing.

  3. Roundtree v. Bates

    1981 OK 77 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    4 § U.S. Const., May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 [1953]; Greenhouse v. Hargrave, Okla., 509 P.2d 1360, 1362 [1973]; Wells v. Sheriff, Carter County, Okla. Cr. 442 P.2d 535, 540 [1968]; Crooks v. District Court of Seventh Judicial Dist., Oklahoma County, Okla., 581 P.2d 897, 899 [1978]; Hedrick v. Hedrick, Okla., 571 P.2d 1217, 1219 [1977]; Ross v. Ross, 201 Okla. 174, 203 P.2d 702, 705 [1949]. See discussion in Hedrick v. Hedrick, supra note 2; Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 386 A.2d 366, 369-372 [1978]; Anno. 35 A.L.R.3rd 520; 9 ULA 111, 112-113, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Prefatory Note.Hedrick v. Hedrick, supra note 2; Greenhouse v. Hargrave, supra note 2; Nehra v. Uhlar, 168 N.J. Super. 187, 402 A.2d 264 [1979]; Borys v. Borys, supra note 3, 386 A.2d at 370.

  4. Shea v. Shea

    DOCKET NO. A-1947-11T4 (App. Div. Mar. 7, 2013)

    POINT IITHE COURT MISAPPLIED BORYS V. BORYS, 76 N.J. 103 (1978).POINT III

  5. Stevens v. Stevens

    177 N.J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    In Stevens v. Stevens, 177 N.J. Super. 167, 425 A.2d 1081 (App. Div. 198 1), a child's mother violated an injunction that prohibited either parent from removing the child from the state of Arizona. The mother took the child from his babysitter and went to New Jersey, where she filed a custody action.

    Even before the Act was passed the Supreme Court indicated that a trial court in a custody action could decline to exercise its jurisdiction rather than to adjudicate custody ". . . when a New Jersey court is asked to determine custody of a child present in the state as a result of a child snatching or disobedience of a sister state's orders, barring extraordinary circumstances." Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 125 (1978). Obviously "child snatching" in the view of the Supreme Court could include removal of a child even though the removal violated no order.

  6. Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel Casino

    124 N.J. 398 (N.J. 1991)   Cited 349 times
    Holding that " fundamental feature of the relationship between state and federal courts is that the courts of each system must respect the judgments of courts of the other system. That respect is essential to the fair and efficient functioning of our federalist system of justice. The rule that state courts must accord preclusive effect to prior federal court judgments is so settled that it is accepted as axiomatic."

    [ Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 439, 64 S.Ct. 208, 214, 88 L.Ed. 149, 155-56 (1943).] See Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 109-11, 386 A.2d 366 (1978); Reese Johnson, The Scope of Full Faith and Credit toJudgments, 49 Colum.L.Rev. 153, 161 (1949) (the framers of the full faith and credit clause intended "to give us the benefits of a unified nation by altering the status of otherwise 'independent, sovereign states'") (quoting Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 355, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 1093, 92 L.Ed. 1429, 1438 (1948)). Just as cohesion between state courts is necessary for national unity, cohesion between state and federal courts is necessary for the continuing vitality of the federalist system.

  7. Neger v. Neger

    93 N.J. 15 (N.J. 1983)   Cited 25 times
    Analyzing the concept of temporary absence under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-28 through -52

    law to change the decree); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953) (holding Ohio need not give full faith and credit to Wisconsin custody judgment because Wisconsin did not have personal jurisdiction over mother who was in Ohio with children at time process was served; Wisconsin had been matrimonial domicile and father had remained there); Kovacs v.Brewer, 356 U.S. 604, 78 S.Ct. 963, 2 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1958) (holding North Carolina had authority to modify New York custody decree if the North Carolina court found changed circumstances, because New York decree was modifiable under New York law on showing of changed circumstances); Ford v. Ford, 371 U.S. 187, 83 S.Ct. 273, 9 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) (holding South Carolina not bound by Virginia court's order of dismissal after being informed of an agreement regarding custody, because Virginia law did not require that courts would be bound by agreements between parents with respect to custody of their children). See also Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 109-115 (1978) (discussing judicial applications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to custody decrees). The positions espoused in these decisions unfortunately encouraged child snatching by a parent, which was condoned, even rewarded.

  8. Goldfarb v. Goldfarb

    268 S.E.2d 648 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    In Goldfarb v. Goldfarb (1980) 246 Ga. 24 [ 268 S.E.2d 648], the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 3 of the UCCJA (Civ. Code, § 5152) as a basis for jurisdiction in a child custody proceeding and held that the father's due process rights were not violated for lack of personal jurisdiction over him when he had full notice and the court had subject matter jurisdiction under the act.

    Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion, widely acknowledged as having set forth the better view, insisted that his support for this view was based on the premise that a state with any justifiable interest in a child's welfare need never accept a prior decision reached in another state if for valid reasons it might differ with the result reached. See Clark, Domestic Relations, § 11.5, p. 324 (1968); Bernard and Johnson, "The Jurisdiction of Texas Courts in Interstate Child Custody Disputes: A Functional Approach," 54 Tex. L. Rev. 1008, 1011-1013 (1976); Kovacs v. Brewer, 356 U.S. 604 ( 78 S.C. 963, 2 L.Ed.2d 1008) (1958); Borys v. Borys, 386 A.2d 366, 371 (N.J.S.C. 1978). That May v. Anderson, supra, has been severely criticized is without dispute.

  9. G.P. v. G.R.

    No. A-1235-21 (App. Div. May. 28, 2024)

    The parties' consent order allowed either party to file an "application with the court to address custody and parenting time issues based on changed circumstances." Indeed, "[a] party seeking to modify custody must demonstrate changed circumstances that affect the welfare of the child[]." Hand, 391 N.J.Super. at 105 (citing Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 115-16 (1978); Sheehan v. Sheehan, 51 N.J.Super. 276, 287 (App. Div. 1958)). Defendant failed to present any evidence of a factual dispute to support a changed circumstance regarding the child's custody.

  10. Sanders v. Sanders

    No. A-3497-20 (App. Div. Dec. 21, 2022)

    "A party seeking to modify custody must demonstrate changed circumstances that affect the welfare of the children." Ibid. (citing Borys v. Borys, 76 N.J. 103, 115-16 (1978)). "'[W]hen the submissions show there is a genuine and substantial factual dispute regarding the welfare of the children,' the 'plenary hearing is necessary to resolve the factual dispute.'" Faucett, 411 N.J.Super. at 128 (alteration in original) (quoting Hand, 391 N.J.Super. at 105).