Grandparent Visitation Petition - New Jersey

VERIFIED COMPLAINT / PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION

(New Jersey — N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1)

I. PARTIES

1.1 Plaintiff(s) — Grandparent(s)

Co-Plaintiff (spouse / other grandparent), if applicable:

1.2 Defendant(s) — Parent(s) / Custodian

1.3 The Minor Child

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, which authorizes a grandparent or sibling of a child residing in this State to apply before the Superior Court for an order for visitation. The application is filed in the Chancery Division, Family Part (R. 5:1-2).

2.2 UCCJEA home state. New Jersey is the home state of the minor child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-53 et seq., because:

☐ The child has lived in New Jersey with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the filing of this Complaint/Petition; or

☐ New Jersey was the child's home state within six (6) months before filing and a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State; or

☐ Other basis: [____________]

2.3 Venue. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County because the minor child resides in this county. R. 5:7-1.

2.4 Other proceedings.

☐ There are no other pending or prior proceedings concerning the custody, parenting time, or visitation of the minor child.

☐ There are other proceedings — Court: [____________]; Docket No.: [____________]; Nature: [____________].

III. STANDING (N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1)

3.1 Plaintiff is a grandparent of the minor child within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 and the child resides in the State of New Jersey.

3.2 The circumstance giving rise to this application is (check all that apply):

☐ A parent of the child is deceased.

☐ The parents are divorced or separated.

☐ A parent's parental rights have been terminated, or other circumstance: [____________]

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 History of the relationship. Plaintiff has had a significant relationship with the minor child, as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.2 Prior full-time caretaker — N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1(c).

☐ In the past, Plaintiff was a full-time caretaker for the child. Under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1(c), this is prima facie evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest. Describe the period and nature of care: [____________]

☐ Not applicable.

4.3 Circumstances leading to this application. Visitation has been denied or unreasonably limited, as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

V. THRESHOLD HARM REQUIREMENT (Moriarty v. Bradt)

5.1 Special weight to a fit parent's decision (Troxel). Plaintiff acknowledges that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, and that a fit parent's decision regarding visitation is entitled to special weight. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

5.2 The harm gateway. Plaintiff acknowledges that, to overcome a fit parent's objection, a grandparent must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the denial of visitation would cause harm or potential harm to the child — a particular, identifiable harm, specific to the child. Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 115–18 (2003). Only if this threshold harm is established does the Court proceed to weigh the statutory best-interest factors.

5.3 Allegation of harm. Plaintiff alleges that the denial of grandparent visitation has caused or will cause the following particular, identifiable harm to the minor child, specific to this child (e.g., loss of a primary caretaker or psychological-parent bond, severance of the child's link to a deceased parent's family resulting in identifiable emotional injury, or other exceptional circumstances):

[____________________________________________________________]

5.4 Burden of proof. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving harm by a preponderance of the evidence, and thereafter that visitation is in the best interests of the child. N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1(a); Moriarty, 177 N.J. at 117.

VI. BEST-INTEREST FACTORS — N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1(b)

6.1 If and after the threshold harm is established, the Court shall consider the following factors. Plaintiff alleges:

☐ (b)(1) The relationship between the child and Plaintiff: [____________]

☐ (b)(2) The relationship between each of the child's parents (or the person with whom the child is residing) and Plaintiff: [____________]

☐ (b)(3) The time that has elapsed since the child last had contact with Plaintiff: [____________]

☐ (b)(4) The effect that visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child's parents (or the person with whom the child is residing): [____________]

☐ (b)(5) If the parents are divorced or separated, the time-sharing arrangement that exists between the parents regarding the child: [____________]

☐ (b)(6) The good faith of Plaintiff in filing this application: [____________]

☐ (b)(7) Any history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect by Plaintiff: ☐ None ☐ Explain: [____________]

☐ (b)(8) Any other factor relevant to the best interests of the child: [____________]

VII. PROPOSED VISITATION SCHEDULE

7.1 Regular visitation. Plaintiff requests:

☐ Weekly: [____________] ☐ Monthly: [____________] ☐ Other: [____________]

7.2 Holidays and special occasions.

7.3 Transportation / exchange. [____________]

7.4 Communication. Telephone/video contact: [____________]

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment:

A. Finding that Plaintiff has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the denial of grandparent visitation would cause particular, identifiable harm to the minor child, thereby satisfying the threshold harm requirement of Moriarty v. Bradt;

B. Finding, upon the factors in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1(b), that visitation is in the best interests of the minor child;

C. Entering an order awarding Plaintiff reasonable visitation with the minor child pursuant to the schedule in Section VII, or as the Court deems just;

D. Awarding costs of this action; and

E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

IX. VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION

STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
COUNTY OF [____________] )

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], of full age, certify that I am the Plaintiff in this action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint/Petition; and that the statements made therein are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

_________________________________
[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

Dated: [__/__/____]

X. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20___.

_________________________________
[PLAINTIFF NAME], Self-Represented
OR
_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq. (NJ Attorney ID No. [____________])
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS] | [PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff

XI. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT

TO THE DEFENDANT(S): A Complaint/Petition for Grandparent Visitation has been filed against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part. You are required to appear and/or file a written response in accordance with the New Jersey Rules of Court and any notice or order issued by the Court. If you fail to appear or respond, the Court may enter orders affecting your rights, including by default. You have the right to be represented by an attorney; if you cannot afford one, you may contact the Legal Services office in your county.

XII. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE / NON-COLLUSION

I certify that on [__/__/____] a true copy of the foregoing Complaint/Petition (and accompanying UCCJEA Affidavit) was served upon each Defendant by ☐ personal service ☐ certified and regular mail ☐ other [____________], at the address(es) listed above. I further certify, pursuant to R. 4:5-1, that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other pending action or arbitration proceeding except as disclosed herein, and no other action or proceeding is contemplated.

_________________________________
[PLAINTIFF / ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 — Visitation rights for grandparents, siblings: application before the Superior Court and preponderance-of-the-evidence best-interest burden (subsec. a); eight statutory factors (subsec. b); prior full-time caretaker = prima facie evidence (subsec. c).
• Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004) — grafts a threshold requirement that the grandparent prove, by a preponderance, that visitation is necessary to avoid harm or potential harm to the child.
• Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1 (2016) — pleading and case-management procedures for grandparent-visitation actions; harm threshold may be shown by gross misconduct, unfitness, abandonment, or exceptional circumstances.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — fit parent's decision entitled to special weight.
• N.J.S.A. 2A:34-53 et seq. — UCCJEA; § 2A:34-54 (affidavit). R. 5:1-2; R. 5:7-1; R. 4:5-1 — New Jersey Rules of Court.

This Petition is a preparation aid only. New Jersey grandparent visitation imposes a constitutionally demanding GATEWAY: the grandparent must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the denial of visitation would cause particular, identifiable harm to the child (Moriarty v. Bradt) before any best-interest analysis. Consult a licensed New Jersey family law attorney before filing.