## Facts

- M. Arthur Beck and Susan M. Beck divorced after a lengthy separation.
- The parties were parents of two adopted daughters who lived with the mother during the separation.
- Expert testimony indicated the children preferred living with the mother but had a positive relationship with their father.
- The trial court, although neither party requested it, ordered joint legal and physical custody with an alternating-residence schedule, finding it in the children’s best interests.
- The Appellate Division reversed, directing sole custody to the mother with liberal visitation to the father and an upward adjustment of child support.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted review to address questions concerning joint custody.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey courts have statutory and equitable authority to award joint legal and physical custody in a matrimonial action.
2. Whether the trial court’s joint custody order was supported by sufficient credible evidence and consistent with the children’s best interests.
3. What level of deference appellate courts owe to trial-court custody determinations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s order of joint legal and physical custody.
- The Court held New Jersey statutes, together with the court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction over custody, authorize joint custody orders.
- The Court held the joint custody award in this case was supported by sufficient credible evidence and served the children’s best interests.
- The Court rejected the Appellate Division’s use of an adoption-law framework that effectively imposed a heightened burden and displaced trial-level fact-finding.
- The Court provided guidance that joint custody should be ordered only when it is feasible and supported by findings tied to the child’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- Custody determinations are governed by the best-interests-of-the-child standard as the controlling consideration.
- N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23’s broad custody language permits courts to craft remedies, including joint legal and physical custody, as circumstances warrant.
- N.J.S.A. 9:2-4’s recognition of equal parental rights and responsibilities supports custody arrangements that preserve meaningful involvement by both parents after divorce.
- Trial courts possess inherent equitable jurisdiction over child custody as successors to chancery authority.
- Appellate review of custody orders is highly deferential; a custody determination should not be disturbed unless it is clearly inconsistent with competent, relevant, and reasonably credible evidence.
- Joint custody is not presumptive or routine; it requires practical feasibility and a demonstrated capacity for parental cooperation and communication, and it cannot be imposed merely as a compromise.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that courts may award joint legal and physical custody and reinstated a joint custody order where credible expert evidence supported the trial court’s finding that shared custody served the children’s best interests, while reaffirming strong appellate deference to trial-level custody fact-finding.


Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 432 A.2d 63 (N.J. 1981)