father relief because it found no substantial change in circumstance, and because it relied on the presumption of custody to the non-abusive parent as set forth in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Appellate Division vacated and remanded the trial court’s determination. 83 139 (1980) provides procedure for courts to follow on Lepis v. Lepis, N.J. “the proper First, the movant must make a showing of changed modification motions.” circumstances to be entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Once that prima showing is made, however, the trial is decided using same standard that apples facie “the at the time of an original judgment of in cases involving custody, by a best divorce”–or, interests analysis. In this particular case, holding a custody trial was appropriate, as the report established a showing of changed circumstances prima facie psychologist’s justifying a hearing. However, by relying on the standard in its “changed circumstances” ultimate decision regarding custody, the trial court erred. Similarly, the trial court cited the incorrect legal standard when it determined that the mother was entitled to a presumption of custody pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Act applies this presumption only in proceedings in which complaints for restraining orders have been filed. In contrast, in custody trials, the history of domestic violence between the parties is one consideration in determining the best interests of the child. The presumption of custody to the non-abusive parent fulfills its function by the determination of custody in the initial FRO “influencing proceeding.” Thereafter, as previously stated, any change in custody requires a showing of changed circumstances and then proof at a hearing that a best interests are served by a child’s
father relief because it found no substantial change in circumstance, and because it relied on the presumption of custody to the non-abusive parent as set forth in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Appellate Division vacated and remanded the trial court’s determination. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) provides “the proper procedure for courts to follow on modification motions.” First, the movant must make a showing of changed circumstances to be entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Once that prima facie showing is made, however, the trial is decided using “the same standard that apples at the time of an original judgment of divorce”–or, in cases involving custody, by a best interests analysis. In this particular case, holding a custody trial was appropriate, as the psychologist’s report established a prima facie showing of changed circumstances justifying a hearing. However, by relying on the “changed circumstances” standard in its ultimate decision regarding custody, the trial court erred. Similarly, the trial court cited the incorrect legal standard when it determined that the mother was entitled to a presumption of custody pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Act applies this presumption only in proceedings in which complaints for restraining orders have been filed. In contrast, in custody trials, the history of domestic violence between the parties is one consideration in determining the best interests of the child. The presumption of custody to the non-abusive parent fulfills its function by “influencing the determination of custody in the initial FRO proceeding.” Thereafter, as previously stated, any change in custody requires a showing of changed circumstances and then proof at a hearing that a child’s best interests are served by a
5471_1.docx