R.Y. v. H.I.

Newark, New Jersey divorce lawyers represented the parties in a marriage dissolution case involving a child custody dispute.

The parties were married in 2012. They have two sons who are minors.



Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2018. Defendant filed a counterclaim for divorce shortly thereafter. The parties resolved their claims with three agreements: (1) a February 27, 2019 consent judgment fixing custody and parenting time; (2) an agreement concerning child support and related expenses; and (3) a property settlement agreement (PSA). In August 2021, the court entered a dual judgment of divorce incorporating the terms of the child support agreement and the PSA.



According to the February 27, 2019 consent judgment, the parties agreed to joint legal and residential custody. They also agreed to a parenting schedule.



Defendant has parenting time on Mondays and Tuesdays and plaintiff has parenting time on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The parties alternate weekend parenting time.



The parties also agreed to select a PC "who shall assist the parties should a dispute arise with respect to a particular parenting issue that the parties are unable to resolve on their own." They also agreed that "[i]f the [PC] cannot foster an agreement between the parties regarding a certain issue, the [PC] may make binding recommendations."



Plaintiff is Hindu and defendant is Jewish. Defendant has raised the children in accordance with her faith, while plaintiff is educating the children in the Hindu religion. The parties' custody agreement provides that they will confer with each other with respect to the children's religious training and act in the best interests of the children.



In May 2022, defendant enrolled her older son in Hebrew school during plaintiff's parenting time every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Plaintiff objected to this arrangement, stating that if his son arrives in his custody at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays, he will lose two-and-a-half hours with him each week and there will be little time after homework and dinner for meditation, a component of Hinduism. Plaintiff considers meditation religious training.



The parties discussed swapping weekday parenting time, but plaintiff's work obligations prevent him from having the children on Mondays and Tuesdays. His employer is in Boston, where executives are present in the office on Mondays and Tuesdays for in-person meetings he sometimes must attend. Plaintiff suggested defendant enroll their son in Hebrew school at a different synagogue than the one she and the children attend, which offers that training on defendant's parenting days. He also suggested defendant hire a tutor to provide the training on her parenting days.



The parties submitted the issue to the PC. She recommended that the older son attend Hebrew school on Wednesdays and that plaintiff either: (1) agree to switch midweek parenting days with defendant; or (2) receive as compensation for the lost time on Wednesdays two additional days of vacation time with the children during the summer. The coordinator noted that attendance at Hebrew school was necessary for the son to have his Bar Mitzvah, a significant milestone in the Jewish faith.



Plaintiff did not accept the PC's recommendation. He moved before the family court for an order: (1) restraining both parties from scheduling religious training for the children during the other parties' parenting time; (2) permitting plaintiff to swap mid-week parenting days when able to do so in the event the

court directs that the older son attend Hebrew school on Wednesdays; and (3) allowing plaintiff hour-for-hour makeup time in the same month that the older son attends Hebrew school on Wednesdays without a mid-day parenting time swap. He argued that: (1) the PC's recommendation would require him to wait many months for makeup time with his son; (2) he is entitled to two weeks of vacation time and may not be able to use two additional vacation days in the summer; and (3) lost afternoon time on Wednesdays would not be adequately compensated by the overnight hours during the two additional vacation days.



Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order enforcing the PC's recommendation. She argued that pursuant to the parenting and custody agreement, the PC's recommendation was binding and insulated from judicial review, unless the PC acted outside her authority. Defendant also argued that plaintiff's motion was filed in bad faith and that he should be responsible for the entire cost of the PC and defendant's attorney's fees.



On October 7, 2021, the family court issued an oral opinion. The court found it had the authority to review the recommendation of the PC to determine if the recommendation was in the best interests of the children. On the merits, the court found that it would be in the best interests of the older child to have the religious training required for his Bar Mitzvah at the synagogue he has been regularly attending since before the parties' divorce. The court found that the synagogue offers the required religious training only on Wednesdays, that defendant did not select that day, and there was no intent on her part to interfere with plaintiff's parenting time.



The court rejected the suggestion that the child attend the training at a different synagogue on either Mondays or Tuesdays to coordinate with defendant's parenting time, given that the suggested alternative synagogue practices a different branch of Judaism than does defendant. In addition, the court found that it was in the child's best interests to attend religious training with his friends and in the community that reflects defendant's values, rather than being isolated at a synagogue with which he and defendant are not familiar.



Thus, the court ordered that the older child may attend Hebrew school on Wednesdays and that plaintiff would receive time in the summer to compensate for the two hours of parenting time he loses each week. The court directed that the total compensating time plaintiff receives in summer represents the number of waking hours equal to the hours lost on Wednesdays. Thus, the court rejected the PC's recommendation that compensating time be two days during the summer because those forty-eight hours would include overnight hours.



R.Y. v. H.I., A-2135-22 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Aug 07, 2024)

Vacated in part and reversed.