JONNA CALI v. << (2014)

In this matter, plaintiff John Paleski sought damages from his ex-wife, defendant Jonna C. Cali, for her alleged negligent supervision of their teenaged son.   The trial judge granted

 pursuanttoRule 4:37–2(b),anddeniedplaintiff'smotion% rfor

reconsideration.1The judge found as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to present a cognizable claim against plaintiff.   We agree and affirm.

We derive the following facts from the record.   Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1989, and divorced in 1997.   They have joint legal custody of their two sons, A.P. and D.P.,2with defendant having primary residential custody.   In 2008, plaintiff gave A.P. permission to have some friends come to his home for a card game while he was away;  however, A.P. had a party instead.   When plaintiff returned, he discovered that some jewelry was missing.   He allegedly told defendant that he thereafter would not allow his sons in his home while he was away.

Plaintiff claimed that in the fall of 2009, when D.P. was seventeen-years old, he told defendant he was planning a trip to South America and did not want their sons in his home while he

 wasaway.PlaintiffleftonSeptember18,2009,leavi ngakey

 1 The judge also dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract and trespass claims with prejudice.   Plaintiff does not appeal from those rulings.

 2 We use initials to identify the parties' sons in order to protect their privacy.

to his home for his sons under a doormat, as he had done in the past.   While he was away, D.P. defied defendant and went to plaintiff's home and had a party.   When plaintiff returned on October 4, 2009, he found that a back window had been broken and there were empty beer and champagne bottles around his property.   Approximately two weeks later, plaintiff discovered that jewelry valued over $38,000 and $200 in cash were missing.

Plaintiff sought to hold defendant responsible for the 2009 incident under a negligent supervision theory.   He asserted that defendant had a duty to supervise D.P.'s conduct and breached that duty by failing to prevent their son from entering his home during his absence and having a party.   In dismissing that claim, the trial judge found that as a matter of law, there was no authority permitting a negligent supervision cause of action between parents of a child, and that as a matter of public policy, the tort of negligent supervision of a child does not permit one parent to sue the other parent for damages the child caused.   On appeal, plaintiff contends the judge erred because

 Mazzilliv.Selger,13N.J.296(1953)andMorella% rv.Machu,235

 N.J.Super.604(App.Div.1989)expresslyrecognize acauseof

action between parents for negligent supervision of a child.   Plaintiff is incorrect.

 ashotgun.Mazzilli,supra,13N.J.at298. AAlthoughstil l

legally married at the time of the shooting, the child's parents were living in separate residences;  the mother had legal and

 residentialcustody.Id.at302. Inafact-sensitiveanalys is

that included the mother's awareness of the shotgun in the room the child shared with his eighteen-year-old half-brother, the weapon's accessibility by the child, including ammunition, a history of the child using firearms, and the mother's role as the child's exclusive custodial parent, our Supreme Court held that the mother had a legal duty to supervise her child in a manner that would not expose the plaintiff to an unreasonable

 riskofharm.Id.at302–305.TheCourtstatedth at”theduty

rested upon [the mother] to use reasonable care that such lethal weapon would not be discharged except under competent supervision or by competent and legally authorized persons.”

 Id. at 304-05.

 InMorella, teenagers had a drinking party in their

 parents'homewhiletheparentswereaway.Morella,supr a,235

 N.J.Super. at 606–07.  An intoxicated underage partygoer

 injuredtheplaintiffwhiledrivingaftertheparty.Id.% rat

608. We held that the parents had a duty to the public to exercise reasonable care to arrange for competent supervision of

their teenagers while they were away, and were subject to

 damagesifthey breached thatduty.Id. at611.

 NeitherMazzillinorMorellaaddressed,orcreateda% rcause

of action for, negligent supervision between parents of a child.   In contrast, the doctrine of parental immunity shields a parent from liability for the negligent supervision of a child in matters, such as those existing in here, involving customary child-care issues or the exercise of parental authority or

 supervision.Foldiv.Jeffries,93N.J.533,551(198 3);see

 alsoBuonov.Scalia,179N.J.131,141(2004)(ho ldingthat

parental immunity applies to matters involving the exercise of parental decision-making).   Thus, the judge was correct that as a matter of law there is no authority permitting a negligent supervision cause of action between parents of a child, and that as a matter of public policy, the tort of negligent supervision of a child does not permit a parent to sue the other parent for damages the child caused.3

 Affirmed.

 3Having reached this conclusion, we need not address plaintiff's contention that the judge usurped the jury's function in granting the motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37–2(b).

PER CURIAM