Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pogue v. Pogue

Decided: January 26, 1977.

STEWART W. POGUE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOAN POGUE, DEFENDANT



Griffin, J.s.c.

Griffin

The issue in this case involves the right of a noncustodial parent to discipline his child. No reported New Jersey case has been found dealing with this question. Surprisingly, no case in point has been found in any state in the country.

The facts are undisputed. The husband left the marital home in April 1976. The wife remained with the six children of the marriage. While there is no custody order, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has ordered support to be paid by the husband and has given him visitation rights. He works across the street from the home and is in frequent contact with the children. He is interested in the children and keeps in touch with the school to watch their progress.

The 15-year-old son of the marriage is not making good grades and has been involved in the destruction of some school property. In an effort to compel the boy to "buckle

down," the father has asked the court to enjoin his playing basketball. This is obviously the boy's "best subject," as he is on the team. The mother resists this application.

The court feels that the issue here involved is more basic than the boy's right to play basketball.

As this question has arisen pendente lite in a divorce action, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 gives some guidance. It reads, in part, as follows:

In making an order or judgment relative to the custody of the children pending a controversy between their parents, or in regard to their final possession, the rights of both parents, in the absence of misconduct, shall be held to be equal, and they shall be equally charged with their care, nurture, education and welfare, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine the custody or possession.

The best interests of the child are served when the parents join together on matters of discipline. The child should not play one parent against the other. This is true when the home is intact. It is also true when the home is broken. However, when communication between the parents breaks down, the court cannot be asked to decide questions of routine discipline.

"Custody normally carries with it full control of the child's religious upbringing". Esposito v. Esposito , 41 N.J. 143, 146 (1963). This is not necessarily true, however, in matters of education. In Ziesel v. Ziesel , 93 N.J. Eq. 153 (E. & A. 1921), the court held that the noncustodial father would not be compelled to send his child to private school. Rosenthal v. Rosenthal , 19 N.J. Super. 521 (Ch. Div. 1952), mod. 26 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 1953), gave the noncustodial father the right to send the boy to private school over the objection of the mother. The court said (at 526), "The child's happiness and welfare is, of course, the paramount consideration that should control the exercise of discretion by the court in this case."

There is no question but that the best interests of the child are of primary concern to the court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.