Custody; D’Onofrio factors; D’Onofrio v D’Onofrio (NJ Super)

The court concluded that only “one of the D’Onofrio factors slightly favored the change of domicile; the rest did not. The trial court emphasized that [defendant-mother] had failed to put forth adequate evidence showing how [the child] ARC’s quality of life would be improved by the move. Rather, as the trial court explained, defendant had shown only how her own life would be improved. Our review of the trial court’s findings does not convince us that the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for change of domicile for ARC. She challenged the trial court’s findings as to the D’Onofrio factors. According to her, these factors supported the change in domicile. As to factor (a), “the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the move did not have the capacity to improve the quality of life for both ARC and defendant.” As to factor (b), the court held that “although defendant presented evidence of attitude issues exhibited by ARC, we discern no error in the trial court’s determination that such issues were minor and appeared normal given the circumstances.” It concluded that at “best, this factor was neutral.” As to “factor (c), defendant acknowledged that driving nine hours every other weekend was not realistic.” The court found that the “facts supported weighing this factor either neutrally or slightly in favor of the move.” Finally, as to “factor (d), the trial court determined that this was inapplicable” concerning plaintiff-father’s payment of child support. On appeal, defendant asserted “that plaintiff was behind on a significant portion of his child support.” However, he “testified that he was ordered to pay $16 per month in child support, and the child support order in the record confirms this. Apart from defendant’s testimony, there is nothing in the record indicating that plaintiff was behind on support. The trial court found that [her] testimony was not credible, and we discern no error based on the lack of evidence.”