This Christmas, gifts were the last thing on the mind of America’s material girl, Madonna. Instead, she and her ex-husband, Guy Ritchie, are entrenched in a custody battle, fighting over where their 15-year-old son Rocco will live. The two were divorced in 2008. Last week, just two days before Christmas, Madonna went to court seeking the return of her son Rocco from London, where the teenager had been visiting with his father. A Manhattan Supreme Court ordered Rocco’s return to Madonna in New York in time for Christmas.
On Christmas Day, the iconic celebrity singer/songwriter expressed herself on Instagram with a photo of her and Rocco and a post reading, “Merry Xmas to the sunshine of my life.”
Rocco allegedly said he wants to stay with Ritchie in London. Although his reasons are uncertain, some speculate that Rocco is weary of Madonna’s tour-driven lifestyle in the United States. Others say it is because Madonna is more of a disciplinarian – the least in vogue for a teenage boy. Madonna has suggested to the media that what made Rocco’s love thaw out for his mother is Ritchie’s open disparagement of her.
Generally, custody disputes involving the return of a child from one country to another are initially dealt with under the Hague Convention where both countries are signatories, as are the United States and the United Kingdom. The Hague Convention is often used to determine which country’s courts will hear the looming custody battle.
Under New Jersey law, Rocco’s preference to live with Ritchie would be important. The relevant statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, provides that no minor child be removed from the state against his or her own consent, when of suitable age to signify the same. New Jersey courts have suggested that a fourteen-year-old is usually of age to so consent. In any event, Ritchie would likely have to obtain court authorization or Madonna’s consent to relocate with his son to London. In New Jersey, if Madonna has primary residential custody, then under a case called Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), Ritchie would have to prove that there is a good faith basis for Rocco’s move to London, and that the move would not be harmful to Rocco’s best interests. If Madonna and Ritchie share residential custody (whereby Rocco spends a relatively equal amount of overnights with both of them), then under a case called O’Connor v. O’Connor, 349 N.J. Super. 381 (2002), Ritchie would need only to prove that it was in Rocco’s best interests to have his primary home in London with him.
Regardless of whether it ends up being Madonna or Guy Ritchie, Rocco’s primary residential custodian will have a duty to aid in fostering Rocco’s relationship with the other parent. Given the geographical distance between Rocco’s two parents’ homes, it will be no easy feat to ensure that Rocco spends ample time with the other parent. But more importantly, that duty carries with it the obligation to ensure that Rocco sees the other parent in spite of any preference he might have otherwise. And it also means that both parents refrain from disparaging the other in Rocco’s presence. So, assuming Madonna’s allegations about Ritchie are true … papa don’t preach!
As Judge Fall of New Jersey’s Appellate Division once eloquently stated, “The ability of parents to put aside their personal differences and work together for the best interests of their child is the true measure of a healthy parent-child relationship.”
