GIRISH G. HEMRAJANI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
NAAHID G. HEMRAJANI, Defendant-Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued April 22, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-1629-06.
Girish G. Hemrajani, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Graves and Ashrafi.
Plaintiff Girish Hemrajani and defendant Naahid Hemrajani were married in 1998 and divorced in the State of Georgia in June 2005. One daughter, now age twelve, was born of the marriage. The judgment of divorce together with the parties' divorce agreement (Agreement) was registered in New Jersey on April 20, 2006. Plaintiff appeals from a January 14, 2011 order. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Pursuant to paragraph 29 of the Agreement, defendant has "primary physical custody of the child" subject to plaintiff's right to "have every reasonable opportunity to visit and spend time with the child and to have the child visit him." The Agreement further provides that plaintiff has "the right to have the child visit with him on alternate weekends" and "for two separate two-week periods" during the summer. Additionally, paragraph 30 of the Agreement states: "It is the agreement of the parties that neither will remove the minor child from the United States without the prior written consent of the other party. Wife shall provide to husband, instanter, a copy of the minor child's passport."
Paragraph 27 of the Agreement, provides that the parties are equally responsible for their daughter's unreimbursed medical and dental expenses:
Husband and wife shall each be responsible for and shall pay one-half (1/2) of any and all expenses of the child for medical and/or dental treatment that is not covered under the aforesaid insurance so long as the obligation to maintain such insurance continues for the wife. Each party shall provide to the other documentation evidencing said uncovered expenses prior to each parties' obligation to pay said uncovered expenses.
In 2006, defendant asked the court to modify the travel restriction in the Agreement, so that she could travel with the child outside of the United States without plaintiff's consent. In an order dated September 22, 2006, the court denied defendant's motion, reasoning as follows:
As per the final judgment and decree of divorce of June 15, 2005 entered in the Superior Court of Georgia, the parties negotiated the issue of international travel with respect to their child and entered into a consensual agreement. Defendant . . . has not shown a change of circumstances. The court previously ruled that absent such a change . . . the previously negotiated agreement would not be modified. Thus, defendant-movant's motion to allow for international travel of the child against plaintiff-respondent's wishes is denied.
In November 2010, defendant filed a motion requesting sole legal and physical custody of their daughter, and again requested the removal of the travel restriction in the Agreement. At that time, the parties' daughter was ten years old, and defendant certified plaintiff had not visited the child "since February 2005, when she was just four years old." Defendant also asked the court to compel plaintiff to exercise visitation with his daughter and, if he failed to do so, to require him to pay the "related costs [defendant incurs] for times that were his to spend with [his daughter]." In addition, defendant asked the court to enforce paragraph 27 of the ...