N.J. Court: Russian man can’t run from one family case while pressing another

Referencing the Doctrine of Fugitive Disentitlement, the appellate court emphasized its need to enforce orders and judgments:

Here, defendant has been avoiding his court-ordered responsibility to support his two children while at the same time seeking to be heard by the court with regard to other issues in the litigation. He seeks to avoid the imposition of the doctrine because one of the issues in the case involves custody. We agree that the doctrine is not generally consistent with a proper analysis of the best interests of the child. See id. at 133 (stating that “whatever limits the fugitive disentitlement doctrine might impose in other settings would not be applicable in a custody case in which no enforcement issue exists”). Here, however, defendant has been afforded contact with his children by way of continued “supervised parenting time to be arranged as between the parties.” Defendant offers no custodial alternative, nor did he complain about custody throughout the litigation — waiting until the last possible date to file a motion to vacate default judgment. He may always reopen the issue of custody should he be in a position to offer his children a viable custodial alternative. See Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007) (stating that a party can modify a custody order by demonstrating “changed circumstances that affect the welfare of the children”). We decline to afford him the protection of the court while he flaunts the court’s authority from overseas.” [Emphasis added.]