JOHNSON V. JOHNSON 9 A.3d 1003 (2010) CASE BRIEF

JOHNSON V. JOHNSON

9 A.3d 1003 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the enforcement of a child custody arbitration agreement.

FACTS: H and W were married on October 26, 1994, and divorced on August 16, 2005. Two children were born during the marriage. W elected to move out of the marital home and ceded residential custody of the children to H. From May 2005 until November 2005, W spent parenting time at the marital residence while she lived in an apartment with roommates. When she purchased her current home, the children began to spend time with her there. The final judgment of divorce provided that the parties would share joint legal custody of the children and that H would continue as the residential custodial parent. The parties encountered difficulties with the parenting schedule and thereafter consented to resolving those issues in arbitration. They chose to be governed by the APDRA. The arbitrator concluded that both parties are decent, well-intentioned, non-pathological parents and that the children are positively developing in their care. [The facts proceed to discuss in massive detail the arbitration award.] Judge Coogan presided over the proceedings in the Family Division. After a hearing, he confirmed the arbitrator's award. In ruling, the judge examined the award in terms of the children's interests and characterized both parties as 'good parents.' Judge Coogan presided over the proceedings in the Family Division. After a hearing, he confirmed the arbitrator's award. In ruling, the judge examined the award in terms of the children's interests and characterized both parties as 'good parents.' Because he determined that the girls 'have a difficult time transitioning from one house to another,' the judge faulted the prior custody schedule with its frequent shuttling back and forth several times during the week and concluded that it was reasonable for the arbitrator to extend W's weekends and expand H's weekday overnights. Further, he noted that the arbitrator was evenhanded in recommending that W see a neuropsychologist specializing in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and that H attend counseling to address his unresolved anger. Finally, the judge concluded that there was a sufficient record made by the arbitrator to permit judicial review. Therefore, he denied W's parenting schedule proposal and both parties' counsel fee requests and confirmed the arbitrator's award. W appealed. The appellate panel reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case for a plenary hearing because the procedural requirements set forth in Fawzy were not satisfied. In particular, because there was no verbatim record of testimony, the panel concluded that the trial court had no basis on which to evaluate the threat of harm to the children or confirm the award. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner