On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-1644-02.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 22, 2009
Before Judges Stern and Newman.
Plaintiff, Deborah Bell, appeals from a March 24, 2008, order entered by Judge Richard Camp, who retired as of March 31, 2008. The order grew out of a case status conference in this very tortured litigious matter involving allegations of parental alienation on the part of defendant, Harvey Bell, as to his sixteen-year-old daughter from her plaintiff mother. There is another appeal pending under Docket No. A-0308-06T3, which was presented to another panel of this court on October 8, 2008, and is awaiting decision.
The present appeal focuses on two paragraphs of the March 24, 2008, order. The first paragraph directs that the parties continue to attempt reconciliation and continue to comply with all prior court orders. The next two paragraphs are the focus of the appeal and read as follows:
2. In light of the fact that at this time, there is no action that the Court can take coupled with the fact that there currently is an appeal pending in the Appellate Division, this Court will place this case on the inactive list.
3. In the event either party wishes to reinstate the matter, as a condition precedent, he or she must apply to the Appellate Division, if the appeal is still pending, to avoid having an open case in both the trial and Appellate level.
On appeal, plaintiff raises the following issues for our consideration:
POINT I: JUDGE CAMP'S MARCH 2008 REVERSAL OF HIS MARCH 2007 FINDING THAT HE HAD CONTINUING ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION PENDING PLAINTIFF'S 2006 APPEAL VIOLATES RULE 2:9-1(a).
POINT II: JUDGE CAMP'S MARCH 2008 ORDER SUSPENDING JURISDICTION IS WHOLLY IRRATIONAL AS IT CONTAINS SELF NULLIFYING DIRECTIVES, AND REQUIRES ALL PRIOR ORDERS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT WHILE RENDERING THEIR EFFECTUATION IMPOSSIBLE.
POINT III: JUDGE CAMP'S MARCH 24, 2008 ORDER EFFECTIVELY TERMINATES PLAINTIFF'S CUSTODIAL RIGHTS WITHOUT NOTIFICATION AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
POINT IV: JUDGE CAMP'S CONCLUSION [THE PARTIES' DAUGHTER] RESISTANCE TO REUNIFICATION AT FIFTEEN YEARS OLD WAS CONCLUSIVE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO IS UNSUPPORTED BY AND CONTRADICTS THE RECORD. IT IS THUS IRRATIONAL AND RESULTED IN A MANIFEST DENIAL OF JUSTICE.
POINT V: JUDGE CAMP FAILED TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT HIS SUSPENSION OF JURISDICTION AND PLACEMENT OF THE CASE ON THE INACTIVE LIST. IT IS THUS IRRATIONAL ...