## Facts

- David Johnson (father) and Molly Johnson (mother) divorced and had two minor children.  
- The divorce decree awarded them joint legal custody and set forth shared physical custody/parenting-time arrangements.  
- Continuing conflicts arose over the parenting-time schedule and the number of transitions between homes.  
- To resolve ongoing custody and parenting-time issues, the parents executed a detailed agreement to submit those disputes to arbitration under New Jersey’s Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA).  
- The agreement specified the arbitrator’s authority, procedures, and that no formal verbatim transcript of proceedings would be kept; instead, the arbitrator’s written decision would constitute the record.  
- Consistent with the agreement, the arbitrator did not conduct formal hearings but repeatedly interviewed each parent, the children, a psychologist, and a clinical social worker, and observed the children in both homes over several months.  
- The arbitrator issued a detailed written award thoroughly recapping interviews, observations, and bases for the decision, and modified the custody schedule to reduce the children’s transitions between households.  
- Molly disagreed with the award, claimed it was harmful or unfair, and petitioned the family court to remove the arbitrator; David moved to confirm the award.  
- After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the arbitrator had created a sufficient record to permit judicial review and confirmed the award.  
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding that in the absence of a verbatim transcript the record was inadequate for review and remanded for a plenary custody hearing.  
- David appealed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.  

## Issues

1. Whether the procedural safeguards and record-creation requirements designed to permit review of claims of harm to a child apply to all child-custody and parenting-time arbitrations.  
2. Whether, in a custody/parenting-time arbitration, the absence of a verbatim transcript renders the arbitration record per se inadequate for judicial review of the award.  
3. Whether the mother established a sufficient, non-frivolous claim that the arbitration award threatened harm to the children so as to justify judicial review beyond the limited standards of the APDRA.  

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the procedures intended to ensure an adequate record for evaluating claims of harm to children apply to all child-custody and parenting-time arbitrations.  
- The Court held that a verbatim transcript is not strictly required; the arbitrator’s detailed written recapitulation and decision in this case provided a sufficient record to permit judicial review.  
- The Court concluded that the mother’s allegations did not make out a prima facie claim that the award posed harm to the children; her objections were deemed insubstantial and did not implicate the children’s welfare at a level warranting expanded review.  
- Because no prima facie harm was shown, judicial review was limited to the narrow grounds in the APDRA, and those grounds did not justify vacating or modifying the award.  
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award.  

## Legal Principles

- Child-custody and parenting-time disputes may be submitted to arbitration, but courts retain a supervisory role to protect the best interests of children.  
- If a challenge to a custody/parenting-time arbitration award does not implicate harm to the child, judicial review is confined to the limited statutory grounds for vacatur or modification of arbitration awards under the APDRA.  
- If a challenge alleges harm to the child, the trial court must first determine whether the challenger has established a prima facie claim of harm; frivolous or insubstantial claims (e.g., mere dissatisfaction with scheduling) do not trigger expanded review.  
- When a prima facie harm claim is presented, the court must determine whether the arbitration record is adequate to assess that claim; if so, the court evaluates harm on that record. If not, the court may take additional evidence or, if necessary, decide custody itself.  
- A sufficient arbitration record for judicial review need not include a verbatim transcript; a thorough written recitation of interviews, observations, and reasoning can satisfy the requirement, particularly where the parties have agreed that such a written decision will constitute the record.  

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated the arbitration award restructuring the Johnsons’ parenting-time schedule. The Court clarified that all custody and parenting-time arbitrations must create an adequate record for potential review of child-harm claims, but that a verbatim transcript is not mandatory. Courts will limit their review to statutory arbitration standards unless a well-founded allegation of harm to the child warrants broader judicial intervention.


Johnson v. Johnson, 204 N.J. 529, 9 A.3d 1003 (N.J. 2010)