N.J. Trial Judge Deems Same-Sex Couple a "Family Unit" in Custody Dispute

A New Jersey Superior Court judge, recognizing two gay men who have not entered into a civil union as a "family unit," has ruled that the ex-wife of one of the men may not disparage the other to their young son. The February 13 ruling culminated a lengthy proceeding that made its way through at least five Camden County trial judges before the case was resolved, and an appeal by the ex-wife is still possible. Judge Deborah Silverman-Katz ordered a liberal visitation schedule with the child for the father and his same-sex partner. Attorney Lauren H. Kane represents the father.

The parties will be referred to here by initials to preserve their confidentiality. Father E and Mother C were married in Cherry Hill, N.J., on September 25, 2003. Father E, a bisexual man, had a prior relationship with a man, S, before becoming involved with and marrying C. C became pregnant within weeks after the wedding, but E and C separated about six months after marrying. The child, J, was born in mid-August of 2004. After the separation, E tried unsuccessfully to find an affordable apartment near his son, but having nowhere else to live, ultimately returned to live with S in New York.

C sued for divorce. In January 2006, the Camden County Court issued a custody and parenting order giving joint legal custody to the two biological parents, but residential custody to the mother. In what may be an action without precedent, Judge Lee A. Solomon approved C’s demand to condition E’s visitation rights on father and his partner S moving from New York to New Jersey in reasonably close proximity to mother’s residence. C claimed that E was not capable of handling the child on his own, and needed to have S present to assist.

After S and E acquired a residence nearby in Camden County, C nonetheless resisted allowing visitation, claiming that S had not really taken up residence there. A neutral expert was assigned by the court to investigate, and he reported that S had indeed moved into the nearby house, so overnight visitation began. However, things did not run smoothly, and E filed an application for a change to give him sole custody of the child, which Judge Solomon denied in July 2007, while granting E’s request that the neutral expert, a child psychologist, be permitted to re-enter the case to render a new opinion on the custodial arrangements. However, Judge Solomon’s order was vague as to the authority and responsibility of the neutral expert, who asked E’s attorney to seek clarification from the court.

When the parties appeared back in court in November 2007, they discovered the case had been reassigned to Judge Angelo DiCamillo, who refused the request to clarify Judge Solomon’s order, asserted that all "experts" were biased, claiming that he did not need the assistance of child psychologists to make his decisions, and also said that he took evidence only on paper, not at live hearings.

By the spring of 2008, E and S became concerned that an unrelated man, who turned out to be a boyfriend of one of C’s adult children, was living with C and the child, and apparently the child was being left in this man’s custody when the mother was at work during the day. They hired an investigator, who determined that the man had a criminal record and maintained a website with disturbing graphics, including a photo of Hitler, a Confederate flag, and photos showing the man, hereafter identified as H, point a gun at somebody’s head as well as a photo showing him holding a gun with the barrel in his own mouth.

Alarmed that his son was being left in the custody of this individual, E filed an order seeking to have the child removed from C’s residence and placed with him. Judge DiCamillo expressed hostility to hearing the motion, saying if he had know in advance what it was about, he would have notified C’s attorney to appear. In referring to H, he said that "the poor man is not here to defend himself," and when E asked for an order of protection, the judge said that the court was "kind of closed right now." The judge did agree to schedule a hearing in July and ordered E’s attorney to notify C’s attorney of the hearing.

S, who is an attorney and a former prosecutor in New York City, wrote to the court asking the judge to withdraw from the case due to his conduct of the November 2007 and June 2008 hearings, and notified the judge that he would be filing a disciplinary complaint against him. The judge’s apparent response was to avoid scheduling the promised hearing and contacting C’s attorney to tell him the matter would not be heard. S then wrote to the chief judge of the county, who ordered Judge DiCamillo to schedule the hearing. E and his attorney requested that the judge withdraw before beginning the hearing, but he refused and, after a hearing at which H did not appear (an affidavit was submitted by C’s attorney instead, which understated H’s criminal record), the judge denied all of E’s motions, including a renewed motion for sole immediate temporary custody, pending a full hearing and final order, but made a variety of rulings on the record, some favorable to E.

However, E’s attempt to get a written order or a transcript of the hearing was unavailing. An attempt to appeal Judge DiCamillo’s August 8 ruling was held up as it took months for his attorney to obtain a transcript from the hearing, and when the transcript arrived, the rulings that had been made in favor of E’s position were mysteriously missing and S noticed other changes from what had been said by the judge during the hearing.

S had filed a complaint against C’s attorney with the Ethics Committee concerning improper communications between the attorney and the judge, as well as the submission of apparently perjured testimony. The attorney’s answer to the Ethics complaint attached what was purported to be a copy of the transcript of that August 8, 2008, hearing. When S reviewed the transcript, he noted that it differed in many respects from the transcript that had been provided to E’s attorney, and at least one of the transcripts appeared to have been backdated and done by different court reporters from two different reporting services, although both transcripts were "certified" as being accurate transcriptions of the taped hearing. S immediately notified both the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Attorney General’s office about this discrepancy. Meanwhile, Judge DiCamillo was removed from the case and reassigned to a different court, and the disciplinary charge against him was resolved with a private sanction by the Ethics committee.

The matter was reassigned to Judge Silverman-Katz, whose February 13 ruling, embodied in a three-page handwritten order, settles a host of issues between the parties, requires C to consult with E on decisions concerning the child, provides for liberal visitation rights for E, and, as noted, treats E and S as a "family unit." The judge denied C’s request for attorneys fees, but partially granted E’s request for fees, apparently considering him the prevailing party on issues decided by the judge. Both parties are warned not to make disparaging remarks about each other or S in the child’s presence. At this hearing, C claimed that H was no longer living in her house.

The case is not over yet, because E is still appealing Judge DiCamillo’s refusal of his petition for immediate transfer of residential as well as sole legal custody. At the same time, it is possible that C will try to appeal parts of Judge Silverman-Katz’s order, as her attorney has already represented that she will refuse to comply with the fee award.

Comments

["C"]

Before posting an article like this, you really should look into and question an one sided story in more detail. Many details were left out many more were mis-stated. Feel free to question me and I will also, glady supply you with any and all literature that I have.
I would like to direct you to read the story posted in THE PHILLADELPHIA GAY TIMES which S submitted. Then, you will need to decide which version of his story you would like to Believe?

-C