9:2-4. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that it is in the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy. In any proceeding involving the custody of a minor child, the rights of both parents shall be equal and the court shall enter an order which may include: a. Joint custody of a minor child to both parents, which is comprised of legal custody or physical custody which shall include: (1) provisions for residential arrangements so that a child shall reside either solely with one parent or alternatively with each parent in accordance with the needs of the parents and the child; and (2) provisions for consultation between the parents in making major decisions regarding the child's health, education and general welfare; b. Sole custody to one parent with appropriate parenting time for the noncustodial parent; or c. Any other custody arrangement as the court may determine to be in the best interests of the child. In making an award of custody, the court shall consider but not be limited to the following factors: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child; the parents' willingness to accept custody and any history of unwillingness to allow parenting time not based on substantiated abuse; the interaction and relationship of the child with its parents and siblings; the history of domestic violence, if any; the safety of the child and the safety of either parent from physical abuse by the other parent; the preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision; the needs of the child; the stability of the home environment offered; the quality and continuity of the child's education; the fitness of the parents; the geographical proximity of the parents' homes; the extent and quality of the time spent with the child prior to or subsequent to the separation; the parents' employment responsibilities; and the age and number of the children. A parent shall not be deemed unfit unless the parents' conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the child. The court, for good cause and upon its own motion, may appoint a guardian ad litem or an attorney or both to represent the minor child's interests. The court shall have the authority to award a counsel fee to the guardian ad litem and the attorney and to assess that cost between the parties to the litigation. d. The court shall order any custody arrangement which is agreed to by both parents unless it is contrary to the best interests of the child. e. In any case in which the parents cannot agree to a custody arrangement, the court may require each parent to submit a custody plan which the court shall consider in awarding custody. f. The court shall specifically place on the record the factors which justify any custody arrangement not agreed to by both parents.
Amended 1948, c.321, ss.4,11; 1974, c.143; 1990, c.26, s.2; 1997, c.299, s.9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
220
cases (
105 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
J.G. v. J.H., 199 A.3d 834 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
J.G. v. J.H., 199 A.3d 834 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
· cites it 8× “9:2-4, addressing "any proceeding involving the custody of a minor child," provides: In making an award of custody, the court shall consider but not be limited to the following factors: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child;…”
Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228 F. App'x 238 (3rd Cir. 2007).
· cites it 7× “Kwasnik also alleged that N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 is unconstitutional because it is applied in a manner that gives preferential treatment to women and, thus, violates his due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
R.K. v. F.K., 96 A.3d 291 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014).
· cites it 5× “If those showings are made, even after consideration of “the history of domestic violence,” N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, re-application of the presumption to change the result would dictate a decision that is not in the best interest of the child.”
Dever v. Howell, 193 A.3d 869 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018).
· cites it 5× “The judge entered a parenting plan, and then directed plaintiff to consult with defendant about all "issues to which [defendant] is entitled to have input [on] as a joint custodian," such as where in New Jersey the children would reside. The order required the children be…”
Anthony Allen v. Lawrence DeBello, 861 F.3d 433 (3rd Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “”); NJ. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-4 (setting out such factors and providing that "[t]he court shall order any custody arrangement which is agreed to by both parents unless it is contrary to the best interests of the child.”
Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2007) (per curiam) (“The Amended Complaint requests review of the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. § 9:2-4(c).... As important, the Amended Complaint includes new requests .”
D.A. v. R.C., 105 A.3d 1103 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A 9:2-4. Determining what custodial arrangement is in the best interest of a child requires the Family Part judge to apply the statutory factors outlined in N.”
Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006).
“, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 (providing custody rights to divorced spouses).”
David M. v. Margaret M., 385 S.E.2d 912 (W. Va. 1989).
“375 (Vernon 1986); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 9:2-4 (West 1976); Tenn.Code Ann.”
Mackowski v. Mackowski, 721 A.2d 12 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998).
“In making a determination as to an award of custody, or in this case a change in custody, a judge is charged with considering the factors set forth in N.J.S.A 9:2-4, including an assessment of “the preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to…”
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(C) — 1 case
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(a) — 17 cases
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(c) — 124 cases
J.G. v. J.H., 199 A.3d 834 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
“9:2-4, addressing "any proceeding involving the custody of a minor child," provides: In making an award of custody, the court shall consider but not be limited to the following factors: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child;…”
Dever v. Howell, 193 A.3d 869 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018).
“The judge entered a parenting plan, and then directed plaintiff to consult with defendant about all "issues to which [defendant] is entitled to have input [on] as a joint custodian," such as where in New Jersey the children would reside. The order required the children be…”
Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
“2007) (per curiam) (“The Amended Complaint requests review of the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. § 9:2-4(c).... As important, the Amended Complaint includes new requests .”
Anthony Allen v. Lawrence DeBello, 861 F.3d 433 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“”); NJ. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-4 (setting out such factors and providing that "[t]he court shall order any custody arrangement which is agreed to by both parents unless it is contrary to the best interests of the child.”
Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228 F. App'x 238 (3rd Cir. 2007).
“Kwasnik also alleged that N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 is unconstitutional because it is applied in a manner that gives preferential treatment to women and, thus, violates his due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(c)(1) — 1 case
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(d) — 10 cases
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(e) — 7 cases
J.G. v. J.H., 199 A.3d 834 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
“9:2-4, addressing "any proceeding involving the custody of a minor child," provides: In making an award of custody, the court shall consider but not be limited to the following factors: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child;…”
Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228 F. App'x 238 (3rd Cir. 2007).
“Kwasnik also alleged that N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 is unconstitutional because it is applied in a manner that gives preferential treatment to women and, thus, violates his due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
— N.J. Stat. § 9:2-4(f) — 19 cases
J.G. v. J.H., 199 A.3d 834 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
“9:2-4, addressing "any proceeding involving the custody of a minor child," provides: In making an award of custody, the court shall consider but not be limited to the following factors: the parents' ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child;…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.