In a Decision – Kempski v. Kempski., (an Unpublished Opinion) >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Part decision that determined that those aspects of the agreement reached at Mediation are enforceable. (The dispute involved an in-state relocation of the child.) The Appellate Division too affirmed the Family Part decision that denied a Hearing as to whether an agreement was reached and which modified the parenting-time schedule but with the understanding that the parties would "agree upon a new parenting coordinator." The Appellate Division set forth that while the parties may have had disagreements, the circumstances were relatively simple and the basic facts regarding the child's enrollment, the parties' daily schedules, and the locations of their residences were not disputed.
The Appellate Division stated:
These concerns and disagreements did not require the conducting of an evidentiary hearing. While the resolution of such disputes often generate hard feelings, the question before the judge – how to adjust the parenting-time schedule and the logistics surrounding the increased distance between the parties' residences – wasn't rocket science. The judge was entitled to resolve the dispute by employing common sense and his life experiences in ascertaining how the parties' parenting-time schedule might be adjusted to accommodate the existing circumstances without unreasonably burdening the child.
The Appellate Division stated in regard to the appointment of a Parenting coordinator as set forth in the Order:
That order was entered approximately seven months ago and we assume that by now the parties have engaged this new parenting coordinator and that the judge's solution to the parties' impasse either has already been or soon will be in the hands of a coordinator who might further refine the schedule to the extent still warranted – yet another reason why we should not intervene or compel the family judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing to deal with this minor squabble.