## Facts

- Andrew Faucett and Darianna Vasquez married in 1997, had one son (“Billy”) the same year, and divorced in 2001.
- On July 26, 2002, the Family Part entered a custody order granting the parties joint legal custody, designating Faucett as the custodial parent/parent of primary residence, and granting Vasquez liberal parenting time (including substantial summer time under the order).
- Faucett later remarried, and Billy’s stepmother assumed a day-to-day parenting role in Faucett’s household.
- Faucett, an active-duty member of the United States military, later agreed to vacate Vasquez’s child-support obligation.
- In January 2008, Faucett moved to reinstate child support, reduce Vasquez’s parenting time, and bar discussions with Billy about changing primary residence.
- Faucett received notice that he would be deployed beginning in February 2009 for approximately one year.
- In January 2009, Vasquez filed an order to show cause seeking a transfer of custody during Faucett’s deployment.
- Vasquez argued she did not need to prove changed circumstances affecting Billy’s welfare because, under a parental-preference doctrine, a natural parent should be preferred over a non-parent (here, the stepmother who would provide daily care during deployment).
- Faucett opposed the application, arguing the case was a dispute between two natural parents (not a parent-versus-third-party contest) and contending that Vasquez’s living situation was unstable.
- The trial court dismissed Vasquez’s request for an immediate custody change (without prejudice), increased her parenting time, and ordered a custody evaluation after which either party could seek modification.
- Vasquez appealed, arguing the court should have conducted a plenary hearing on custody.

## Issues

1. When the court-ordered parent of primary residence is scheduled for an approximately one-year military deployment, must the other parent still satisfy the threshold requirement of showing changed circumstances affecting the child’s welfare to seek custody modification?
2. Does the parental-preference doctrine apply so that a non-custodial natural parent is presumptively entitled to custody over a step-parent or other non-parent caregiver during the custodial parent’s deployment?
3. Does a one-year (or more) military deployment by the custodial parent constitute a prima facie showing of changed circumstances requiring a plenary hearing when material facts relevant to best interests are disputed?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held that the parental-preference doctrine did not apply because the dispute remained between two natural parents in a custody-modification posture, not a custody contest between a parent and a third party.
- The court held that the general requirement remains: a parent seeking to modify custody must first make a threshold showing of changed circumstances affecting the child’s welfare.
- The court held that when an otherwise fit non-custodial parent shows the custodial parent is facing deployment for a significant period—identified by the court as one year or more—that showing is sufficient as a prima facie change in circumstances.
- The court held that, upon such a prima facie showing, the moving parent is entitled to a plenary hearing on disputed material facts bearing on the child’s best interests and whether custody should be modified during the deployment.
- The court reversed the portion of the order dismissing Vasquez’s application without prejudice and remanded for a plenary hearing and further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A request to modify an existing custody order generally requires a threshold showing of changed circumstances affecting the child’s welfare before the court conducts a full best-interests determination.
- The parental-preference doctrine applies in parent-versus-non-parent custody disputes; it does not create a presumption in a custody-modification dispute between two natural parents merely because a step-parent may provide day-to-day care.
- A custodial parent’s military deployment for a significant period (one year or more) may satisfy the prima facie changed-circumstances threshold for purposes of obtaining a plenary hearing.
- Once a prima facie showing is made and material facts related to best interests are disputed, the court should not decide the custody-modification request solely on submissions; an evidentiary (plenary) hearing is required.
- A custodial parent’s deployment does not, by itself, mandate an automatic transfer of custody; the outcome turns on the child’s best interests based on evidence developed at the hearing.

## Conclusion

In *Faucett v. Vasquez*, the Appellate Division rejected any automatic custody transfer or parental-preference presumption triggered by the custodial parent’s impending deployment, but held that a deployment of about one year or more is a prima facie change in circumstances that entitles the non-custodial parent to a plenary hearing to determine whether modifying custody during the deployment serves the child’s best interests.


Faucett v. Vasquez, 984 A.2d 460 (2009)