NJSBA Family Law Section

FYI

-------------------------------------------
Jenny Berse Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1

-------------------------------------------

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

I disagree with David's perspective on AW v TD.
At the end of the day, reading it caused me to pause and reflect on the trauma being experienced by all involved in that courtroom, including the judge, knowing that sooner than later the mother will pass away. 
The case also highlights for me a flaw in our legal system..... at the end of this woman's life, she, her doctors and her former husband forced to battle in court over how much longer she will live and how much longer she can properly care for their children as the primary custodial parent. I cannot imagine how difficult that whole setting was for everyone involved. 


-------------------------------------------
Richard Diamond Esq.
Diamond & Diamond P.A.
225 Millburn Avenue
Suite 208
Millburn NJ 07041
(973)379-9292

-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 15:31
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

I have never commented on this page before, but I am compelled to agree with Richard's commentary on this case. I found it to be a compelling example of judicial compassion and reason in an incredibly difficult and sad situation. I found Judge Jones' opinion to strike the exact right balance of legal reason and sensitivity. I think this this case could serve as a guidepost for the handling of this type of case and I thought that it was published for that reason.
-------------------------------------------
Patrick Foley Esq.
New Brunswick NJ
(732)214-1502

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 16:28
From: Richard Diamond
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I disagree with David's perspective on AW v TD.
At the end of the day, reading it caused me to pause and reflect on the trauma being experienced by all involved in that courtroom, including the judge, knowing that sooner than later the mother will pass away. 
The case also highlights for me a flaw in our legal system..... at the end of this woman's life, she, her doctors and her former husband forced to battle in court over how much longer she will live and how much longer she can properly care for their children as the primary custodial parent. I cannot imagine how difficult that whole setting was for everyone involved. 


-------------------------------------------
Richard Diamond Esq.
Diamond & Diamond P.A.
225 Millburn Avenue
Suite 208
Millburn NJ 07041
(973)379-9292

-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 15:31
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

And I have a different take on this - I cannot imagine from reading this opinion that the father was acting purely out of concern for his children - I think he jumped the gun and walked into court when he should have been having a period of burying whatever hatchet he had, being kind to the mother of his children and simply working with her to assist in whatever she and the children needed as her illness progressed. Had he succeeded I think his children would have resented his decision to take them from their mother's care.   And while I don't know who the attorneys involved were - really - could they not have found another way other than to litigate this issue to help these children through this process?

-------------------------------------------
Debra Guston Esq.
Glen Rock NJ
(201)447-6660

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 16:39
From: Richard Diamond
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I disagree with David's perspective on AW v TD.
At the end of the day, reading it caused me to pause and reflect on the trauma being experienced by all involved in that courtroom, including the judge, knowing that sooner than later the mother will pass away. 
The case also highlights for me a flaw in our legal system..... at the end of this woman's life, she, her doctors and her former husband forced to battle in court over how much longer she will live and how much longer she can properly care for their children as the primary custodial parent. I cannot imagine how difficult that whole setting was for everyone involved. 


-------------------------------------------
Richard Diamond Esq.
Diamond & Diamond P.A.
225 Millburn Avenue
Suite 208
Millburn NJ 07041
(973)379-9292

-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 15:31
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly.  Granted, we don't know the background and there's always two sides to every story, but the guy looks like a jerk (to put it nicely) in this decision.  On the other hand, the best judges can get things wrong, and most decisions tend to overlook inconvenient facts and focus on those supporting the decision.  Who knows, perhaps he is a super-concerned nice-guy parent and filed the application because the kids were collapsing emotionally watching what mom was going through and begged him to file the application?  I don't know... but it's not really the point.  If we publish every trial level case where someone (or two someones) acts like an idiot, we'd fill a phone book a week. 

I'm still curious as to why this case was published - what would one cite the case to say?  "Custody of children shouldn't change when an illness doesn't affect parenting"?  With all due respect.... duh.

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

Dave's point is a good one.  Published decisions should contain some nugget of guidance, a novel issue, something "citable." 
While the facts in the case may be heart-wrenching, the opinion boils down to a determination that Dad did not substantiate a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of custody.  There are a dozen unpublished appellate court decisions coming out every month that contain the same holding. 
I would think that, in order for a trial court opinion to be published, there should be something more compelling than sad facts and a compassionately toned decision.
And yes, I heartily agree that this was the worst way to handle the family's situation.  Maybe the answer to Dave's initial question ("Why was this case was chosen for publication?") is:  to rub our collective noses in the uglier side of family court litigation and get us to consider opting for a gentler method of conflict resolution in certain cases.   

-------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Radell, Esq.
207 South Main Street
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210
Phone (609) 465-9910
Fax (609) 465-9920
E-Mail [email protected]
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 17:42
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I agree wholeheartedly.  Granted, we don't know the background and there's always two sides to every story, but the guy looks like a jerk (to put it nicely) in this decision.  On the other hand, the best judges can get things wrong, and most decisions tend to overlook inconvenient facts and focus on those supporting the decision.  Who knows, perhaps he is a super-concerned nice-guy parent and filed the application because the kids were collapsing emotionally watching what mom was going through and begged him to file the application?  I don't know... but it's not really the point.  If we publish every trial level case where someone (or two someones) acts like an idiot, we'd fill a phone book a week. 

I'm still curious as to why this case was published - what would one cite the case to say?  "Custody of children shouldn't change when an illness doesn't affect parenting"?  With all due respect.... duh.

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

Call me simplistic.  The opinion was published because, as Judge Jones said in the first line, "This case presents a serious issue of first impression regarding the impact a terminal cancer diagnosis may have on an existing custody arrangement."

I am a big fan of Judge Jones.  He is that rare combination of practical, empathic, "hands on", creative; always urging people to meet, confer, get along, and resolve.  And he is not afraid to make a decision.

This opinion is helpful in a pending case, so I am glad it is there, whether or not published.

Hanan

-------------------------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 18:34
From: Lisa Radell
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

Dave's point is a good one.  Published decisions should contain some nugget of guidance, a novel issue, something "citable." 
While the facts in the case may be heart-wrenching, the opinion boils down to a determination that Dad did not substantiate a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of custody.  There are a dozen unpublished appellate court decisions coming out every month that contain the same holding. 
I would think that, in order for a trial court opinion to be published, there should be something more compelling than sad facts and a compassionately toned decision.
And yes, I heartily agree that this was the worst way to handle the family's situation.  Maybe the answer to Dave's initial question ("Why was this case was chosen for publication?") is:  to rub our collective noses in the uglier side of family court litigation and get us to consider opting for a gentler method of conflict resolution in certain cases.   

-------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Radell, Esq.
207 South Main Street
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210
Phone (609) 465-9910
Fax (609) 465-9920
E-Mail [email protected]
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 17:42
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I agree wholeheartedly.  Granted, we don't know the background and there's always two sides to every story, but the guy looks like a jerk (to put it nicely) in this decision.  On the other hand, the best judges can get things wrong, and most decisions tend to overlook inconvenient facts and focus on those supporting the decision.  Who knows, perhaps he is a super-concerned nice-guy parent and filed the application because the kids were collapsing emotionally watching what mom was going through and begged him to file the application?  I don't know... but it's not really the point.  If we publish every trial level case where someone (or two someones) acts like an idiot, we'd fill a phone book a week. 

I'm still curious as to why this case was published - what would one cite the case to say?  "Custody of children shouldn't change when an illness doesn't affect parenting"?  With all due respect.... duh.

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

Totally agree with you Hanan

-------------------------------------------
Jenny Berse Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855)FAM-LAW1

-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 11/20/2013 6:38:41 PM
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE:AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

Call me simplistic.  The opinion was published because, as Judge Jones said in the first line, "This case presents a serious issue of first impression regarding the impact a terminal cancer diagnosis may have on an existing custody arrangement." I am a big fan of Judge Jones.  He is that rare combination of practical, empathic, "hands on", creative; always urging people to meet, confer, get along, and resolve.  And he is not afraid to make a decision. This opinion is helpful in a pending case, so I am glad it is there, whether or not published. Hanan ------------------------------------------- Hanan Isaacs Esq. Kingston NJ (609)683-7400 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 18:34 From: Lisa Radell Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision Dave's point is a good one.  Published decisions should contain some nugget of guidance, a novel issue, something "citable."  While the facts in the case may be heart-wrenching, the opinion boils down to a determination that Dad did not substantiate a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of custody.  There are a dozen unpublished appellate court decisions coming out every month that contain the same holding.  I would think that, in order for a trial court opinion to be published, there should be something more compelling than sad facts and a compassionately toned decision. And yes, I heartily agree that this was the worst way to handle the family's situation.  Maybe the answer to Dave's initial question ("Why was this case was chosen for publication?") is:  to rub our collective noses in the uglier side of family court litigation and get us to consider opting for a gentler method of conflict resolution in certain cases.    ------------------------------------------- Lisa M. Radell, Esq. 207 South Main Street Cape May Court House, NJ 08210 Phone (609) 465-9910 Fax (609) 465-9920 E-Mail [email protected] -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 17:42 From: David Perry Davis Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision I agree wholeheartedly.  Granted, we don't know the background and there's always two sides to every story, but the guy looks like a jerk (to put it nicely) in this decision.  On the other hand, the best judges can get things wrong, and most decisions tend to overlook inconvenient facts and focus on those supporting the decision.  Who knows, perhaps he is a super-concerned nice-guy parent and filed the application because the kids were collapsing emotionally watching what mom was going through and begged him to file the application?  I don't know... but it's not really the point.  If we publish every trial level case where someone (or two someones) acts like an idiot, we'd fill a phone book a week.  I'm still curious as to why this case was published - what would one cite the case to say?  "Custody of children shouldn't change when an illness doesn't affect parenting"?  With all due respect.... duh. ------------------------------------------- David Perry Davis, Esq. 112 West Franklin Avenue Pennington, NJ 08534 Voice: 609-737-2222 Fax: 609-737-3222 -------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- Marianne Auriemma Esq. Maywood NJ (201)712-9663 ------------------------------------------- This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children. My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably. Why can't we change the system?
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 20:46 From: Debra Guston Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision And I have a different take on this - I cannot imagine from reading this opinion that the father was acting purely out of concern for his children - I think he jumped the gun and walked into court when he should have been having a period of burying whatever hatchet he had, being kind to the mother of his children and simply working with her to assist in whatever she and the children needed as her illness progressed. Had he succeeded I think his children would have resented his decision to take them from their mother's care. And while I don't know who the attorneys involved were - really - could they not have found another way other than to litigate this issue to help these children through this process? ------------------------------------------- Debra Guston Esq. Glen Rock NJ (201)447-6660 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 16:39 From: Richard Diamond Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision I disagree with David's perspective on AW v TD. At the end of the day, reading it caused me to pause and reflect on the trauma being experienced by all involved in that courtroom, including the judge, knowing that sooner than later the mother will pass away. The case also highlights for me a flaw in our legal system..... at the end of this woman's life, she, her doctors and her former husband forced to battle in court over how much longer she will live and how much longer she can properly care for their children as the primary custodial parent. I cannot imagine how difficult that whole setting was for everyone involved. ------------------------------------------- Richard Diamond Esq. Diamond & Diamond P.A. 225 Millburn Avenue Suite 208 Millburn NJ 07041 (973)379-9292 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 15:31 From: David Perry Davis Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication. A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate. Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call... Where's the cutting edge legal issue? Does it change something? Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions? I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this? What am I missing? ------------------------------------------- David Perry Davis, Esq. 112 West Franklin Avenue Pennington, NJ 08534 Voice: 609-737-2222 Fax: 609-737-3222 -------------------------------------------

Well said Marianne, and I'm sure many of us ponder this as well as we try to "change the system" within our practices!
This opinion is so great for so many reasons!

-------------------------------------------
Jenny Berse Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 08:51
From: Marianne Auriemma
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision



-------------------------------------------
Marianne Auriemma Esq.
Maywood NJ
(201)712-9663

-------------------------------------------

This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children.

My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably.

Why can't we change the system?

I don't think the issue is necessarily the "system".  There are currently a number of ADR methods, including mediation, arbitration and collaborative divorce that are gaining steam and resulting in less litigation (remember, 95%+ of all cases settle).  However, when a party cannot see past his/her own emotion and needs in terms of dealing with his/her (soon to be) former spouse, we see cases like this reach the Court.  As a reminder, the Plaintiff/father in this case was "pro se".  My sincere hope is that it he was pro se because he went to one or more seasoned family practitioners who turned down the case with the same reaction that Dave had - i.e. a diagnosis of illness without proof of inability to care for the children is not grounds for change of custody, "Duh".

-------------------------------------------
Nancy Marchioni Esq.
Middlesex NJ
(732)667-3668

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 10:23
From: Jenny Berse
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

Well said Marianne, and I'm sure many of us ponder this as well as we try to "change the system" within our practices!
This opinion is so great for so many reasons!

-------------------------------------------
Jenny Berse Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 08:51
From: Marianne Auriemma
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision



-------------------------------------------
Marianne Auriemma Esq.
Maywood NJ
(201)712-9663

-------------------------------------------

This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children.

My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably.

Why can't we change the system?

I see it s little dofferently.

When parents divorce, some of them lose any capacity to communicate effectively. Father here may have believed he was not getting the full story. He might have rushed to court on the theory that he could only get the information he needed by the court's involvement. And he got his assurances, along with a strong pathway to taking primary custody when mom is more debilitated.

I would argue that the system worked as it should have.

If parties have a better wsy to communicate, then that is clearly far preferable to litigation. But I don't see this case as evidence of a malfunctioning court process. To the contrary: Judge Jones intervened swiftly, appropriately, and with sensitivity and respect for both parties.

Hanan
----------------i--------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400

-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 11/21/2013 10:29:22 AM
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE:AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I don't think the issue is necessarily the "system".  There are currently a number of ADR methods, including mediation, arbitration and collaborative divorce that are gaining steam and resulting in less litigation (remember, 95%+ of all cases settle).  However, when a party cannot see past his/her own emotion and needs in terms of dealing with his/her (soon to be) former spouse, we see cases like this reach the Court.  As a reminder, the Plaintiff/father in this case was "pro se".  My sincere hope is that it he was pro se because he went to one or more seasoned family practitioners who turned down the case with the same reaction that Dave had - i.e. a diagnosis of illness without proof of inability to care for the children is not grounds for change of custody, "Duh". ------------------------------------------- Nancy Marchioni Esq. Middlesex NJ (732)667-3668 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-21-2013 10:23 From: Jenny Berse Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision Well said Marianne, and I'm sure many of us ponder this as well as we try to "change the system" within our practices! This opinion is so great for so many reasons! ------------------------------------------- Jenny Berse Esq. Cranford NJ (855) FAM-LAW1 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-21-2013 08:51 From: Marianne Auriemma Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision ------------------------------------------- Marianne Auriemma Esq. Maywood NJ (201)712-9663 ------------------------------------------- This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children. My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably. Why can't we change the system?

This is precisely why some of us are promoting the use of collaborative divorce.  There will be a bill introduced shortly to codify the process.   I believe strongly in alternate dispute resolution, especially in family cases, and this process, along with mediation, would have been a much better alternative to litigating this case.  While I understand that there are some cases that require litigation because there is no way to bring the parties together, we should be getting out of the business of throwing stones in court and then telling our clients once the issues is resolved to go back and co-parent successfully.  Litigation is just not a family-friendly.

-------------------------------------------
Rosalyn Metzger, Esq.
Rosalyn A. Metzger LLC
4 Wood Hollow Drive
Pittstown, New Jersey 08867
[email protected]
www.mediate.com\RMetzger
(908) 238-0099


-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-26-2013 08:24
From: Marianne Auriemma
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision



-------------------------------------------
Marianne Auriemma Esq.
Maywood NJ
(201)712-9663

-------------------------------------------

This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children.

My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably.

Why can't we change the system?

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Roz. This family could have used the services of a mediator or two attorneys collaboratively trained to address the legal, emotional and financial issues that this very difficult situation brought to the forefront. I don't discount that the father had genuine concerns. I'm sure the mother was horrifed by the dad's actions. The reality is that the situation sadly will probably have to be addressed again. Planning would have been key in the collaborative process to minmize the trauma to the children. All the money spent on certifications and court appearances could have been directed to the less costly use of a mental health therapist and financial neutral professional to map out the future. Maybe this is a possibilty for PLan B.

-------------------------------------------
Anna-Maria Pittella Esq.
Red Bank NJ
(732)842-6939

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-27-2013 10:13
From: Rosalyn Metzger
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision


This is precisely why some of us are promoting the use of collaborative divorce.  There will be a bill introduced shortly to codify the process.   I believe strongly in alternate dispute resolution, especially in family cases, and this process, along with mediation, would have been a much better alternative to litigating this case.  While I understand that there are some cases that require litigation because there is no way to bring the parties together, we should be getting out of the business of throwing stones in court and then telling our clients once the issues is resolved to go back and co-parent successfully.  Litigation is just not a family-friendly.

-------------------------------------------
Rosalyn Metzger, Esq.
Rosalyn A. Metzger LLC
4 Wood Hollow Drive
Pittstown, New Jersey 08867
[email protected]
www.mediate.com\RMetzger
(908) 238-0099


-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-26-2013 08:24
From: Marianne Auriemma
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision



-------------------------------------------
Marianne Auriemma Esq.
Maywood NJ
(201)712-9663

-------------------------------------------

This case and the discussion on this list serve forces me to ask something I've long wondered about, i.e., why do we continue to litigate divorces and family matters. Why must we take adversarial positions? Do we do this because that's the way it's always been done? Isn't it time to revise the age old system that destroys families and causes untold amounts of psychological harm to the children.

My perspective is that divorcing spouses who have children together are irrevocably tied together. The 'family unit', post divorce, is now formatted differently, but still a family unit of some kind. I think the system should enable the parties to end the marriage with dignity and respect and with the understanding that, going forward, it is all about the best interests of their children. Maintaining our adversarial system of divorcing fails miserably.

Why can't we change the system?

Well said Debra.


-------------------------------------------
Lise A. Fisher Esq
Gibbsboro NJ
(856) 741-0246

-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 10:48
From: Debra Guston
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

And I have a different take on this - I cannot imagine from reading this opinion that the father was acting purely out of concern for his children - I think he jumped the gun and walked into court when he should have been having a period of burying whatever hatchet he had, being kind to the mother of his children and simply working with her to assist in whatever she and the children needed as her illness progressed. Had he succeeded I think his children would have resented his decision to take them from their mother's care.   And while I don't know who the attorneys involved were - really - could they not have found another way other than to litigate this issue to help these children through this process?

-------------------------------------------
Debra Guston Esq.
Glen Rock NJ
(201)447-6660

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 16:39
From: Richard Diamond
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

I disagree with David's perspective on AW v TD.
At the end of the day, reading it caused me to pause and reflect on the trauma being experienced by all involved in that courtroom, including the judge, knowing that sooner than later the mother will pass away. 
The case also highlights for me a flaw in our legal system..... at the end of this woman's life, she, her doctors and her former husband forced to battle in court over how much longer she will live and how much longer she can properly care for their children as the primary custodial parent. I cannot imagine how difficult that whole setting was for everyone involved. 


-------------------------------------------
Richard Diamond Esq.
Diamond & Diamond P.A.
225 Millburn Avenue
Suite 208
Millburn NJ 07041
(973)379-9292

-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 15:31
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------

Clearly the result was not obvious to the parties in the case.  Perhaps the Appellate Division wants to avoid future trials on this issue by giving guidance on its thinking in a published decision.

-------------------------------------------
Grissele Camacho Esq.
Plainsboro NJ
(609)235-6363

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 11:09
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: AW v. TD - Published Trial Court Decision

What is curious about this case / decision is why it was deemed worthy of publication.  A parent, who has terminal cancer is still able to care for her children, therefore no transfer in residential custody is now appropriate.  Tragic, sad case, but a rather obvious call...  Where's the cutting edge legal issue?  Does it change something?  Does it answer some unresolved conflict in previous published decisions?  I think any of us could point to many unpublished appellate decisions that really should have been published... and they decide to publish this?  What am I missing?

-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------