On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FD-08-1112-04.
RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 24, 2011 - Decided Before Judges Kestin and Newman.
This non-matrimonial Family Part matter involves issues of parental access to the parties' child. Defendant appeals from one aspect of an order entered on May 4, 2009. Plaintiff has not participated in the appeal. We vacate the one aspect of theorder and remand for such further proceedings as may be required.
When the instant proceeding was opened to the trial court in March 2009, the underlying matter already had a history; it bore a 2004 docket number. The first document in the record before us, however, is an order entered on August 5, 2008, which recited that plaintiff had provided proof she completed intensive outpatient MICA program as of July 29, 2008. [Plaintiff] must follow up with all recommendations. [Plaintiff's] application for custody is denied without prejudice at this time. As long as [plaintiff] continues to be compliant with all mental health recommendations including taking all medications she is to have parenting time unsupervised as agreed. Parenting time not to be overnight and not to exceed eight hours at this time.
Custody to remain with [defendant].
In a document captioned "application for post-disposition hearing," dated March 9, 2009, plaintiff sought "modification of order" and "visitation," specifically modification of "the current visitation order to include overnights" with the child. Defendant filed a letter dated March 13, 2009, setting out his reasons for resisting plaintiff's application; and, in another letter dated March 20, 2009, he requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, noting: "This is not a Division of Youth and Family Services case as [plaintiff] with her other kids." [sic]
The hearing on plaintiff's application was held on May 4, 2009, with both parties appearing pro se. It resulted in an order that provided: Defendant to follow the psychiatric evaluation recommendations. Defendant to provide this report to the Court and DYFS.
The plaintiff will have unsupervised overnight parenting time as agreed by the parties. Parties may review the DYFS reports, with a protective order, involving [the child] only. (The parties will need to make an appointment to review those records in the Family Courthouse.) The Court finds that the plaintiff is in compliance with all of DYFS services. The parties are to submit the child study team records & follow through with any recommendations.
In his appeal from this order, defendant presents the following argument:
THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO INVADE [DEFENDANT'S] FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY COMPELS THE REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER.
A. [Defendant] has a fundamental right of privacy in his psychological medical records.
B. An invasion of fundamental privacy rights may only occur in ...