I represent mom post-judgment. The parties were divorced in early 2014 after a long trial. In the Judgment of Divorce, the trial judge appointed a reunification therapist to evaluate the potential for reunification between the almost-teenage daughter and dad. In addition, the trial judge restricted the amount of activities the daughter would be permitted to participate in until reunification was successful (to coerce daughter to participate in reunification). Under the Judgment, the reunification therapist was to submit periodic reports after speaking and meeting with the daughter, mom, dad, and each of their therapists.
1 year later, dad filed a motion to reduce his alimony and child support. Mom files a cross-motion to vacate the restriction regarding the daughter's participation in extra-curricular activities. The trial court issues an Order, denying dad's financial requests. Regarding mom's request to vacate the restriction, the trial court reserved a final decision until receipt and review of the reunification therapist's report.
5 months later, the reunification therapist submits a report, which essentially opined the reunification has not been successful and may not be successful in any point in the near future. The reunification therapist also opined that the restriction on the daughter's extracurricular activities be lifted.
On Monday, I have to appear for a Case Management Conference before the trial court regarding the submission and contents of the report. I anticipate that the trial court will schedule a plenary hearing on whether reunification therapy should continue.
My concerns are as follows:
- The issue of whether reunification therapy should continue was NOT in either motion below. Therefore, why should a hearing be scheduled, which will cost my client thousands of dollars she cannot afford (especially considering dad's substantial arrears). The daughter has become emotionally traumatized from the ongoing litigation and both she and mom are exasperated with the reunification process and quite frankly, the court's continuous involvement.
- I understand that pursuant to Rule 5:8-2, et seq., the court on its own motion can reopen the case and schedule a formal hearing after the receipt of a report. Anticipating the court may indeed do this on Monday, does anyone have an argument I can make or case law I can refer to as to the limited application of this Rule?
The madness in this case needs to end. I feel awful for the daughter, who has pretty much lived in this court system.
I apologize for the long-winded post. Again, any assistance would be appreciated!
------------------------------
Melissa M. Ruvolo, Esq.
Ruvolo Law Group, LLC
55 Madison Ave., Suite 360
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Phone: 973.993.9960
Fax: 973.993.9961
Email:
[email protected] ------------------------------