RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3904-15T2
MEREDITH A. ACCOO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSE MIRANDA,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted May 24, 2017 – Decided August 25, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Burlington County, Docket No. FD-03-0647-14.
Meredith A. Accoo, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In this non-dissolution matter,1 plaintiff (mother) appeals
from the March 30 and 31, 2016 Family Part orders denying her
1
The non-dissolution or FD docket provides a mechanism for parents
not married to each other to seek custody, parenting time,
application to increase child support and modify custody and
parenting time for the parties' daughter. The trial judge entered
these orders on the parties' written submissions, without oral
argument or a plenary hearing. Because the judge is no longer on
the bench, we remand this matter to the Presiding Judge of the
Family Part for assignment to a different judge for the development
of a proper reviewable record.
We discern the following facts from the limited documentary
record. The parties were awarded joint legal custody of their
daughter, born September 2013, with plaintiff being designated the
parent of primary residence. Defendant (father) was granted
parenting time on alternate weekends as well as Thursdays on the
off weeks. Defendant was responsible for picking up their daughter
at the beginning of his parenting time, and plaintiff was
responsible for picking up their daughter at defendant's
Philadelphia residence on Sundays after the weekend visits.
Defendant was also ordered to take their daughter to swimming
lessons during his parenting time.
paternity, and child support. R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113,
131 (App. Div. 2014).
2 A-3904-15T2
On December 22, 2014, plaintiff obtained a final restraining
order (FRO) against defendant under the Prevention of Domestic
Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Following a June 10, 2015
hearing on the FD docket, plaintiff's application to limit
defendant's parenting time as well as a change of the custody
exchange location from Philadelphia to New Jersey were denied
without prejudice. However, subject to the FRO, defendant was
ordered to provide plaintiff with twenty-four hours advance
written notice, either by way of text communication or email,
confirming each visitation.
In addition, defendant was ordered to pick up and deliver
their daughter to the designated New Jersey location for his
Thursday visitation, and allow their daughter's participation in
social and extra-curricular activities scheduled during his
parenting time subject to plaintiff providing defendant with as
much notice as possible on the scheduling of the activities. The
order, executed on June 15, 2015, also denied without prejudice
plaintiff's application for defendant to contribute to their
daughter's daycare expenses because the court had "an insufficient
factual and legal basis to award relief at [that] time." However,
the court directed both parties to exchange current Case
Information Statements (CIS) no later than July 1, 2015.
3 A-3904-15T2
On September 24, 2015, defendant's application for a
reduction in child support due to unemployment was denied without
prejudice and enforcement of the child support order was suspended
for thirty days.2 As of that date, defendant's child support
arrears totaled $9,175.37. In addition, defendant's application
for additional time for discovery was denied without prejudice and
defendant was ordered to file an updated CIS.
On May 2, 2016, asserting a "substantial change in
circumstances[,]" plaintiff submitted an application to the court
seeking: (1) an increase in child support to account for weekly
child care expenses; (2) reduction of parenting time to one weekend
per month, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day with no overnights;
(3) modification of transportation arrangement so that all pick
up and drop off custody exchanges occur in New Jersey; (4) sole
legal and physical custody of their daughter; (5) suspension of
the requirement that plaintiff confer with defendant on matters
involving their daughter's care and welfare in light of the FRO;
(6) enforcement of prior orders; and (7) attorney's fees.
To establish the requisite changed circumstances to justify
the relief requested, plaintiff certified that their daughter "has
2
Defendant did not appear for the hearing and indicated "problems
with transportation from Philadelphia." Defendant was, however,
represented by counsel who appeared telephonically.
4 A-3904-15T2
grown and is no longer an infant so her needs have changed
significantly." According to plaintiff, their daughter was "now
in daycare" and participating in extra-curricular activities,
including "swimming at Rowan College . . . , [g]olf at Willingboro
Recreation and . . . Jack and Jill of America, Inc." Plaintiff
averred that defendant failed to follow court orders to ensure her
participation in these activities and showed no interest in their
daughter's "educational and social development or [her] physical
development and health" as evidenced by his neglect of her needs.
Plaintiff certified that, since July 2014, defendant missed his
court ordered parenting time on thirty-eight occasions.
According to plaintiff, she was "the sole parent . . . fit
to make all decisions concerning [their daughter's] health,
education, religion and welfare." Plaintiff certified defendant
"contribute[d] nothing to [their daughter] financially[,]" was
"substantially unable to provide for her care and welfare[,]" and
accumulated child support arrears exceeding $12,000. Plaintiff
averred that defendant was a convicted felon, was on probation for
five years in Pennsylvania, and was subject to an active FRO issued
after defendant "threaten[ed] to kill [her] in front of [their
daughter,] push[ed] [her] with [their daughter] in [her] arms and
repeatedly harass[ed] [her.]" Plaintiff certified that she was
"in fear for her life" because defendant was "violent and
5 A-3904-15T2
inappropriate around [their daughter]" and "has threatened to kill
himself."
In response to plaintiff's application, defendant filed a
counter-claim on March 24, 2016, requesting a decrease in child
support, as a result of a change in employment and a significant
decrease in income, enforcement of the custody order and
modification of the parenting time schedule.3 Plaintiff's
application and defendant's counter-claim were scheduled to be
heard on March 30, 2016. On that date, based solely on the
parties' written submissions,4 the court issued an amended FRO
permitting the parties to "communicate via email only, with respect
to confirming parenting time only" and addressed child support,
custody and visitation in two orders issued under the FD docket,
3
Defendant did not file a timely answering brief and we entered
an order on October 28, 2016, suppressing any brief filed on
defendant's behalf without leave of court. Because defendant has
not filed an answering brief, the record does not contain any
submissions filed in the trial court on defendant's behalf in
support of his counter-claim.
4
The record does not contain a transcript of a court proceeding
conducted on that date and one of the orders issued by the court
specified that the court "reviewed the parties' submissions and
for other good cause shown[.]"
6 A-3904-15T2
a Uniform Summary Support Order5 dated March 30, 2016 and a
handwritten order dated March 31, 2016.
Regarding child support, the court denied plaintiff's
application for an increase in child support and instead granted
defendant's request for a reduction of child support "due [to]
change[d] circumstance pertaining to work related day care[.]"6
Regarding custody, the court denied plaintiff's request for "sole
legal custody[.]" As to parenting time, plaintiff's request to
modify parenting time was denied but defendant's "request for
additional make-up parenting time during the summer" was granted.
Defendant's request to utilize third parties for custody exchanges
was granted, and plaintiff's "request to modify the pick-up and
drop-off points" was partially granted. Plaintiff's request to
compel defendant to take their child to her scheduled activities
and daycare during his parenting time was granted in part, and
denied in part, and plaintiff's request to suspend the requirement
to communicate with defendant regarding their child was denied.
5
A Uniform Summary Support Order is a form order needed to utilize
the New Jersey Automated Child Support System and automated payment
center that is supervised by Probation Services. R. 5:7-4(b).
6
Plaintiff's request that a bench warrant be issued for non-
payment of child support was denied "due to the pending support
enforcement hearing."
7 A-3904-15T2
The parties were directed to "exchange current CISes as previously
ordered by the court no later than April 15, 2016" and plaintiff's
"request for counsel fees"7 was denied.
This appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the
court denied her requests for relief and "disproportionately
granted all requests made by [d]efendant or beneficial to
[d]efendant" without oral argument, a plenary hearing, or
"consideration of the child's best interests[.]" Further,
plaintiff argues that the court failed to issue either written or
oral findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with
Rule 1:7-4(a). We agree.
Family "judges are under a duty to make findings of fact and
to state reasons in support of their conclusions." Heinl v. Heinl,
287 N.J. Super. 337, 347 (App. Div. 1996); see R. 1:7-4(a).
"'Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets
forth the reasons for his or her opinion.'" Strahan v. Strahan,
402 N.J. Super. 298, 310 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Salch v. Salch,
240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990)). "Naked conclusions
do not satisfy the purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4." Curtis v. Finneran,
83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980). Here, the motion judge failed to make
7
Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se in her appeal, she was
represented by counsel at the scheduled March 30, 2016 court
appearance.
8 A-3904-15T2
any findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule
1:7-4(a). We are thus compelled to remand this matter to the
Family Part to develop a reviewable appellate record, which may
require the judge to order a period of discovery and, if warranted,
conduct a plenary hearing to make factual findings and resolve any
disputed material facts.
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
9 A-3904-15T2