NJ & CT News

CONNECTICUT

No Improper Medical Judgment Made in Custody Case

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has upheld the child custody determination of Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, finding that the judge was not unduly influenced by concerns about the choice of the boy's medical treatments when determining the issues. Collins v. Collins, 117 Conn.App. 380 (Conn.App. 9/29/09).

During the Collins' marriage, the couple's son was diagnosed with a medical condition that could be remedied either by his having an operation or by his taking antibiotics for life. The court ruled that the wife could testify concerning what transpired between the parties regarding the child's illness but could not testify as to the underlying medical condition. She testified that together the couple chose to have their son undergo the operation, but that the husband later cancelled the procedure without consulting her. She also said she would still prefer that the boy have the surgery so that he would not have to take antibiotics every day, but that the husband continued to refuse permission. Following an objection and a request by the husband that this testimony be stricken, the court reiterated that it would only consider the testimony as historical evidence with respect to how the parties addressed issues with the children and engaged in decision-making, and not as to what the proper course of treatment should be for the couple's son.

In its decision awarding custody to the mother, the court pointed to the husband's inability to make a decision, stating, “Whether it was a decision to have a flooded basement cleaned or a medical decision regarding the children, the defendant either dragged his feet or stubbornly committed to an unreasonable position.” The judge also made other derogatory statements concerning the husband's handling of the couple's son's medical condition. The husband appealed, claiming the trial court made a biased decision based on its opinion about how the couple's son's medical treatment should have been handled, rather than its opinion about his and his wife's relative parenting abilities. The appellate court found no error, however, stating, “There is no evidence that the court made a judgment as to which treatment option was better or a determination that the first treatment option was not working and the child's condition was worsening. Most importantly, the record reveals no suggestion by the court that the defendant was an unfit parent because he preferred the first option.” On the contrary, the appellate court found that the trial court merely raised the issue of the child's medical condition as an example of the defendant's inability to co-parent and to participate in decision-making with the plaintiff.

NEW JERSEY

Court Corrects Child-Support Computer Glitch

The New Jersey judiciary has fixed the problem in its child support calculation software that may have incorrectly set child support duties in 131 cases. The Family Part learned of the glitch when matrimonial attorney Robert Rottkamp, of Trenton's Rottkamp & Flacks, checked the court-mandated child support obligation of one of his clients with his own calculator and found the client's obligation had been set too high.

The problematic software could have caused mistakes only in cases in which the parents shared tax exemptions for their children; where both were designated as a head of household for tax filing purposes; and where the Internal Revenue Service's Circular E was used to calculate the amount of support owed by a single, noncustodial parent. The Administrative Office of the Courts will notify any parties affected, but adjustments will be made only upon request for judicial review.

Without Cross-Examination, One Party's Word Is Not Enough

In O.N. v. R.N., Not Reported in A.2d, 2009 WL 3460416 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/21/09), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, remanded a case concerning a request for dissolution of a final restraining order (FRO) to the trial court following that court's continuation of the FRO. At the hearing on the issue, both parties had appeared without counsel, and there was no cross-examination. They disagreed on almost all of the factual issues, setting up a classic “he said, she said,” scenario. The appellate division, in reversing the family court's decision, noted that although family court judges possess special expertise in the field of domestic relations and they are undoubtedly in the best position to judge the veracity of their witnesses, plenary hearings that include cross-examination are mandatory when, as here, the central factual issues are all in dispute.

CONNECTICUT

No Improper Medical Judgment Made in Custody Case

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has upheld the child custody determination of Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, finding that the judge was not unduly influenced by concerns about the choice of the boy's medical treatments when determining the issues. Collins v. Collins , 117 Conn.App. 380 (Conn.App. 9/29/09).

During the Collins' marriage, the couple's son was diagnosed with a medical condition that could be remedied either by his having an operation or by his taking antibiotics for life. The court ruled that the wife could testify concerning what transpired between the parties regarding the child's illness but could not testify as to the underlying medical condition. She testified that together the couple chose to have their son undergo the operation, but that the husband later cancelled the procedure without consulting her. She also said she would still prefer that the boy have the surgery so that he would not have to take antibiotics every day, but that the husband continued to refuse permission. Following an objection and a request by the husband that this testimony be stricken, the court reiterated that it would only consider the testimony as historical evidence with respect to how the parties addressed issues with the children and engaged in decision-making, and not as to what the proper course of treatment should be for the couple's son.

In its decision awarding custody to the mother, the court pointed to the husband's inability to make a decision, stating, “Whether it was a decision to have a flooded basement cleaned or a medical decision regarding the children, the defendant either dragged his feet or stubbornly committed to an unreasonable position.” The judge also made other derogatory statements concerning the husband's handling of the couple's son's medical condition. The husband appealed, claiming the trial court made a biased decision based on its opinion about how the couple's son's medical treatment should have been handled, rather than its opinion about his and his wife's relative parenting abilities. The appellate court found no error, however, stating, “There is no evidence that the court made a judgment as to which treatment option was better or a determination that the first treatment option was not working and the child's condition was worsening. Most importantly, the record reveals no suggestion by the court that the defendant was an unfit parent because he preferred the first option.” On the contrary, the appellate court found that the trial court merely raised the issue of the child's medical condition as an example of the defendant's inability to co-parent and to participate in decision-making with the plaintiff.

NEW JERSEY

Court Corrects Child-Support Computer Glitch

The New Jersey judiciary has fixed the problem in its child support calculation software that may have incorrectly set child support duties in 131 cases. The Family Part learned of the glitch when matrimonial attorney Robert Rottkamp, of Trenton's Rottkamp & Flacks, checked the court-mandated child support obligation of one of his clients with his own calculator and found the client's obligation had been set too high.

The problematic software could have caused mistakes only in cases in which the parents shared tax exemptions for their children; where both were designated as a head of household for tax filing purposes; and where the Internal Revenue Service's Circular E was used to calculate the amount of support owed by a single, noncustodial parent. The Administrative Office of the Courts will notify any parties affected, but adjustments will be made only upon request for judicial review.

Without Cross-Examination, One Party's Word Is Not Enough

In O.N. v. R.N., Not Reported in A.2d, 2009 WL 3460416 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/21/09), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, remanded a case concerning a request for dissolution of a final restraining order (FRO) to the trial court following that court's continuation of the FRO. At the hearing on the issue, both parties had appeared without counsel, and there was no cross-examination. They disagreed on almost all of the factual issues, setting up a classic “he said, she said,” scenario. The appellate division, in reversing the family court's decision, noted that although family court judges possess special expertise in the field of domestic relations and they are undoubtedly in the best position to judge the veracity of their witnesses, plenary hearings that include cross-examination are mandatory when, as here, the central factual issues are all in dispute.