On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County.
Approved for Publication December 5, 1997.
Before Judges Stern, Kleiner and Kimmelman. The opinion of the court was delivered by Stern, J.A.D.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stern
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Defendant Kathleen Mishlen appeals from portions of a "Dual Judgment of Divorce," entered on December 10, 1996 following a six-day trial, which (1) awarded her $332 per week in child support for the parties' two children, (2) provided her with six months of rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $125 per week, (3) required that she "not expose the two minor children of the marriage to William Baldridge at any time or place, consistent with a Pendente Lite Consent Retraining Order" and (4) required that each party "pay their own respective counsel fees." The pendente lite consent order of October 18, 1993 has not been included in the record, but it is undisputed that it provided that the Mishlen children "shall not be in the presence of Mr. Baldridge at any time." Although in her trial testimony she disavowed any plan to marry Baldridge, in her brief on this appeal defendant asserts that Baldridge is her "paramour and the individual she intends to marry."
POINT I THE COURT FAILED TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW IN REGARD TO RESTRAINING THE APPELLANT
FROM EXPOSING THE CHILDREN FROM MR. BALDRIDGE.
POINT II THE COURT'S DECISION TO FORBID THE APPELLANT
FROM EXPOSING THE CHILDREN TO MR. BALDRIDGE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT IMPINGES UPON APPELLANT'S
RIGHT TO MARRY MR. BALDRIDGE.
POINT III THE COURT'S USE OF ITS "PARENS ...