In a Decision – A.M. v. T.A. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court decision and found that Wife alleged no facts suggesting a change in circumstances warranting modification of the bar of her visiting with the childen.
During the proceedings that ultimately resulted in defendant obtaining custody of the children, the court ordered their evaluation by a psychologist the parties jointly selected. At the evaluation, the children expressed no desire to see plaintiff. The children had been undergoing therapy for trauma resulting from the murder. In 2014, an expert concluded visitation with plaintiff would be harmful to the children. When plaintiff filed her 2018 motion seeking an evaluation of the children, the judge denied the motion without a hearing, noting plaintiff did not show any changed circumstances to justify another evaluation. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. Rather, it appeared plaintiff was seeking to have a new expert appointed simply because she was not satisfied with the opinion of the first expert who had been jointly selected by the parties.