Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1582-11T3
04-08-2013
KATHLEEN LANE, n/k/a KATHLEEN COHEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREW LANE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Francis W. Donahue argued the cause for appellant (Donahue, Hagan, Klein, & Weisberg, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Donahue, of counsel and on the briefs; Rebecca K. Li, on the brief). Brian P. McCann argued the cause for respondent (Cavalli & McCann, LLC, attorneys; Mr. McCann, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Simonelli, Koblitz and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-2135-04.
Francis W. Donahue argued the cause for appellant (Donahue, Hagan, Klein, & Weisberg, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Donahue, of counsel and on the briefs; Rebecca K. Li, on the brief).
Brian P. McCann argued the cause for respondent (Cavalli & McCann, LLC, attorneys; Mr. McCann, on the brief). PER CURIAM
The parties are protagonists in long-running post-judgment litigation over parenting time with their three children. The hostilities have continued almost unabated since 2006, two years after their divorce and their negotiated agreement to share legal and residential custody of their children on an equal basis. Last year we dismissed two prior appeals when the parties' continued litigation in the trial court deprived us of the ability to render any practical relief in the specific disputes presented to us. This appeal confronts us with a similar dilemma, and we again determine that dismissal is the appropriate course.
Defendant Andrew Lane, Jr. appeals from an October 18, 2011 order denying his motion to replace the parties' parenting coordinator. We set forth the history of the parties' marriage, divorce, and post-judgment proceedings to that date in our prior opinion. Lane v. Lane, Nos. A-5645-09 and A-3401-10 (App. Div. Apr. 16, 2012). We add here only those facts necessary to provide context for our decision.
The parenting coordinator defendant objected to was appointed in January 2010, replacing the prior coordinator, a lawyer, who had asked to be relieved. The new coordinator was not a licensed therapist but a retired New Jersey Family Part Judge. It does not appear from the record that either party objected to the appointment, initially. Over the next several months, however, first plaintiff and then defendant sought the coordinator's removal. The court consistently denied those requests, leading to this appeal.
On February 6, 2013, a week before argument, plaintiff's counsel wrote to the Clerk's Office to advise that the trial court had entered an order on October 23, 2012, shortly after our decision in Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012), denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to use the parenting coordinator he sought to have removed by this appeal. In an accompanying memorandum, the judge deemed it "inappropriate to force either party to use a parenting coordinator." In light of these events, plaintiff's counsel requested that we dismiss the appeal as moot. Defendant's counsel disagreed. Although acknowledging that "the parent coordinator's involvement in this case is finished," he nonetheless urged that we address this matter by adopting guidelines of his devising "so that no family suffers a similar tragedy."
In Milne we addressed the propriety of a court compelling use of a parenting coordinator not in conformity with the Supreme Court's Implementation Guidelines for the Parenting Coordinator Pilot Program. We concluded that although parties to a matrimonial dispute may make their own agreements regarding their use of a parenting coordinator, "any Family Part judge ordering the appointment of a [parenting coordinator] must comply with the Supreme Court's established Guidelines," regardless of whether the vicinage was a participant in the pilot program. Id. at 205. The Guidelines prohibited the appointment of an attorney as a parenting coordinator absent consent of the parties. See Notice to the Bar: Parenting Coordinator Pilot Program, 188 N.J.L.J. 169, § II D(1) (Apr. 9, 2007), available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ notices/2007/n070403a.pdf.
The Supreme Court terminated the pilot program on November 26, 2012. See Notice to the Bar: Parenting Coordinators - Conclusion of Pilot Program, 210 N.J.L.J. 854 (Dec. 3, 2012), available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/2012/ n121126a.pdf. Family Judges may, however, continue to appoint parenting coordinators in any vicinage. Parenting coordinators "so appointed will need to be qualified to serve either by consent of the parties or by the court in the same manner as other experts." Ibid.
As the trial court's order of October 23, 2012 ended the involvement of the parenting coordinator defendant sought to have removed by this appeal, this matter is now moot. See Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 App. Div. 2006) (concluding that when a decision can have no practical effect on the existing controversy, the matter is moot). Adoption of guidelines for the appointment and service of parenting coordinators are the prerogative of our Supreme Court.
Dismissed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION