The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

Defendant R.C. appeals from the order of the Chancery Division, Family Part denying his motion seeking reconsideration of a prior order of the court which reaffirmed and enforced a parenting time schedule that was part of a Consent Order entered by the parties ten years earlier. Defendant argues the motion judge erred in failing to compel the parties to submit to mediation or alternatively conduct a plenary hearing to address and resolve the disputed material factual issues raised by the parties. Most importantly, defendant argues the judge failed to interview the fourteen-year-old child at the center of this dispute, as mandated by Rule 5:8-6, and failed to "specifically place on the record the factors which justify any custody arrangement not agreed to by both parents." N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f).

After reviewing the record developed before the Family Part, we agree with defendant's arguments and remand this matter for the trial judge to refer this matter to mediation as required under Rule 5:8-1. If mediation fails to resolve the custody and parenting time issues raised by the parties, the judge shall then conduct a plenary hearing to resolve the factual disputes contained in the parties' account of events, and thereafter place on the record his factual findings and conclusions of law as required by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f) and Rule 1:7-4(a). As part of this hearing, the judge must comply with the requirements of Rule 5:8-6 by either interviewing the parties' now sixteen-year-old son concerning the custody and parenting time issues raised by his parents, or otherwise place on the record the reasons for his decision not to interview this child. In reaching this decision, the judge must consider the factors outlined in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), including "the preference of the child," given his age and capacity to reason.

We discern the following facts from the record developed before the Family Part.

I

The parties had a dating relationship from 1996 to 2000. Their son "Jeremy" (a fictitious name to protect his privacy) was born in December 1998. Represented by separate counsel, the parties agreed to mediate the legal issues concerning their son and entered into a Consent Order for Joint Custody and Parenting Time dated April 26, 2002. This Consent Order comprehensively addressed and resolved all of the issues generally associated with the rearing of the parties' then three-year-old son, including agreeing that the child would reside with plaintiff (mother), while giving defendant (father) "reasonable and liberal parenting time with the child." The Consent Order included a detailed description of the terms governing defendant's parenting time with his son.

Neither party sought judicial intervention to modify the terms of this Consent Order until defendant filed a motion on November 7, 2012, "requesting changes in the custody/parenting time terms of the [consent] order to reflect the current practice and agreement." Defendant claimed plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to this modification permitting Jeremy to reside with him because her relationship with her then thirteen-year-old son had deteriorated and become too difficult to handle, given the demands of time and effort associated with her then recent employment as a police officer.

Defendant attached to the notice of motion an "information sheet" dated October 28, 2012, setting forth the basis for his request that the court recognize and approve what he claimed was a de facto, mutually agreed upon voluntary modification of the custodial arrangement established in the 2002 Consent Order. The following account of events is based upon the allegations defendant made in support of this motion. Specifically, defendant claimed that since the Consent Order "was issued almost ten years ago, the [p]laintiff and I have on many occasions informally modified the custody and parenting time terms of the Court Order to better align with [Jeremy]'s needs and best interest." Although he recognized that his son had been academically successful during the time he had resided with his mother, defendant claimed the child had also experienced "intermittent disciplinary and behavioral issues...."

These issues became more acute as the boy reached his teenage years. Defendant attributes his son's behavioral problems, at least in part, to plaintiff's "parenting style," which defendant characterizes as "ill-suited and ineffective in addressing" Jeremy's disciplinary problems. Defendant alleges he "regularly got phone calls" from both plaintiff and Jeremy "expressing frustration and anger, or complaints about the other."

The relationship between Jeremy and his mother continued to deteriorate during the boy's pre-teen years. Eventually plaintiff told defendant that "she thought it would be better if [Jeremy] lived with [him] permanently." Defendant claimed that during the summer of 2012, when Jeremy was thirteen years old, he and plaintiff "reached [an] agreement that [he] would take primary custody of [Jeremy], to begin `officially' when school started in September [2012]." They agreed upon a parenting time schedule that permitted Jeremy to meet with his mother on Wednesdays "after school" and stay with her overnight on "alternate weekends." Defendant represented to the court that this arrangement "has been in effect at least since September [2012]."

With respect to child support, defendant claimed plaintiff agreed to file a motion to modify the Consent Order "to reflect this understanding in December 2012 when she graduated from police academy training. In the meantime, [p]laintiff agreed that she would reimburse me in the amount of the child support payments I made pending the modification." According to defendant, he decided to file the motion seeking judicial recognition of this oral agreement because plaintiff told him "she did not have time [to do it herself] because she was too busy due to her police academy obligations."2

Plaintiff submitted her own certification disputing all of the material allegations defendant made in support of his motion. As a starting point, plaintiff emphasized defendant "has a law degree from Harvard and a MBA [Master's Degree in Business Administration] from the University of Pennsylvania." She described defendant's conduct during their initial attempts in 2002 at resolving the custody and parenting time issues as confrontational and less than completely candid and forthright on defendant's part. She was nevertheless thankful that they were able to reach an agreement that lasted for eleven years "except for very brief periods of time."

Plaintiff cited the summer of 2012 when she began her academy training to become a police officer as an example of one of the "brief" departures from the custodial arrangement reflected in the 2002 Consent Order. Because the time demands imposed on her by this training coincided with defendant being unemployed, plaintiff "thought it would be a fine opportunity for `father and son' to spend more time together." She insisted, however, that this was a temporary custodial arrangement intended to end when she graduated from the police academy on December 14, 2012. Because the exigency that necessitated this custodial arrangement had ended, plaintiff claimed it was in her son's best interest to return to her home.

With respect to her son's welfare, plaintiff alleges Jeremy "is exposed to violence at [defendant's] home and that his needs are being neglected." Her concern over her son's safety emanates from defendant's wife. Plaintiff characterizes defendant's relationship with his wife as "quite violent." She claims three domestic violence restraining orders have been filed between defendant and his wife, "believes" each has filed municipal court charges against the other, and claims "the police have been called to the home on multiple occasions." She thus fears that Jeremy is "often put in the middle" of defendant's violent and dysfunctional relationship with his wife.

By way of proof, plaintiff presented to the trial court (and included in the appellate record) three emails allegedly sent by Jeremy on the morning of April 11, 2012. The first email, sent at 9:22 a.m., states: "MOM CALL THE POLICE SEND THEM TO MY DADS [sic] HOUSE [naming defendant's wife] HAS A KNIFE PLEASE CALL PLEASE CALL THE POLICE AND SENT THEM TO [defendant's home address]! PLEASE PELASE [sic] PLEASe [sic]." The second email, sent at 9:23 a.m., states: "CALL THE POLICE AND SENT IT TO MY DADS [sic] HOUSE PLEASE PLEASDE [sic] PLEASE." The third and final email, sent at 9:24 a.m., states: "SEND THEM TO MY DADS [sic] HOUSE SEND THEM TO MY DADS [sic] HOUSE."

Plaintiff claims she was shopping one block away from defendant's residence when she received the first email, and "rushed over." When she arrived at defendant's apartment, she "had to knock on the door really hard and had to yell out for him." When she finally gained access to the apartment, her son told her

Plaintiff characterizes defendant's response to the violence between him and his wife as "unacceptable." As a result, she "did not allow [Jeremy to go his father's home] for the next 3 weeks." Plaintiff also claims that at some unspecified time defendant and his wife were involved "in a court battle for their [six-year] old daughter." It is plaintiff's "understanding" that defendant's wife "lost the case because of her violent tendencies and her drug use." Plaintiff alleges defendant and his wife "have since reconciled and live together." Plaintiff concluded this aspect of her certification by describing defendant's home as "an unstable, violent place for our son. A custody transfer to [defendant] would not be in [Jeremy's] best interest whatsoever."

Despite making these highly inflammatory allegations against defendant and his wife, plaintiff conceded that she "modified" the custodial arrangement at the start of Jeremy's freshman year of high school for "approximately two months." She claims, however, that the custodial arrangement defendant described in his statement ended when defendant's wife "started having problems with our son." Specifically, plaintiff claims defendant's wife called her to complain about having to drive Jeremy around because he "wasn't her child or her responsibility." Instead of immediately terminating the arrangement, plaintiff claims she told defendant's wife "to discuss the matter with [defendant]. After all, [Jeremy] was his responsibility as well."

Plaintiff describes her personal life as nonviolent and happy. She has a stable relationship with "another police officer." She claims her "`significant other' loves [Jeremy] and [Jeremy] loves him." She does not have a criminal record and "look[s] forward to a long career with [the] [p]olice [d]epartment." Finally, because she does not have any other children, she can focus her attention on Jeremy.

Defendant filed a reply certification noting that he had not made any inflammatory allegations against plaintiff in support of his motion, and then lamenting the ad hominem attacks plaintiff had made against him and his wife. Defendant addressed and refuted the many instances of impropriety alleged by plaintiff. He also emphasized that plaintiff had not objected to his regular overnight contacts with his son since 2010.

Despite defendant's alleged intent to remain above the fray and take the moral high ground in this dispute, his reply certification is replete with disparaging allegations of plaintiff's confrontational parenting style, including resorting to striking Jeremy "repeatedly with a broomstick" and threatening him "with a baseball bat." We pause here to note the same seeming contradictions in defendant's position we noted when we reviewed plaintiff's certification. That is, despite these highly disturbing accusations and concerns about plaintiff's parenting style, defendant allowed his young son to reside with his allegedly violent mother for over ten years.

II

The First Hearing

Both sides were represented by counsel at the time defendant's motion to modify the 2002 Consent Order came before the Family Part on December 21, 2012. Unfortunately, the attorneys' demeanor and arguments echoed the vitriolic tone reflected in the warring certifications submitted by their respective clients. We are compelled to note at this time the informality with which the trial judge conducted this motion hearing. Although the parties were technically "sworn" by a Sheriff's Officer at the start, the environment created by the informal, conversational style of the proceeding was more akin to a mediation session than an adjudicative hearing. This had the unintended, yet unfortunate effect of yielding more heat than light, ultimately leaving unresolved the central issues raised by the parties.

The judge interacted with the parties on the record in a highly informal manner, asking questions and receiving material and conflicting factual assertions in response from both the parties and their respective counsel. Despite these conflicting material accounts involving key events, the judge seemed at times to accept or reject these proffers and representations without having the benefit of a factual record developed through a traditional evidentiary hearing.

Through this freewheeling colloquy, plaintiff conceded that Jeremy had been residing with defendant since she entered the police academy at the start of the summer of 2012. In fact, when the judge asked plaintiff whether "as a practical matter," Jeremy resided with his father "right now," plaintiff answered: "Right now he's staying there, yes."

However, defendant asserted (without being subjected to cross-examination) that by mutual agreement with plaintiff, Jeremy had been residing with him since he graduated eighth grade in 2010. The judge addressed defendant directly to ensure he understood his position:

Defendant's counsel asked the judge "to put the same question to [plaintiff.]" In response, the judge asked plaintiff: "What do you have to say?" After some equivocation, plaintiff denied defendant's account and offered to produce her parents and other friends as witnesses to support her position. In the midst of this freewheeling exchange, the judge made the following comment:

Despite the parties' intransigence and conflicting positions, the motion judge continued to press for some form of mediated solution. Showing his frustration, the judge addressed the parties directly and asked: "Why do I have to make a decision for the two of you about where your son should stay?" The record shows that fourteen transcript pages of argument and colloquy transpired thereafter. The judge never received a direct answer to his poignant, yet seemingly rhetorical question. At that point, the judge addressed the parties once again with these final words:

As an accommodation to the attorneys' schedule, and in light of the pending holiday recess, the court scheduled the matter to return for mediation on Thursday, January 10, 2013.

III

The Second Hearing

When the parties returned on January 10, 2013, nothing substantive had changed. The parties remained barricaded behind their intransigent, materially-conflicting positions. Plaintiff's counsel apprised the judge that "because there has been no specific parenting plan [defendant] has taken it upon himself to keep the child and take the child sometimes more often than not thereby basically ignoring Your Honor's court order and thereby depriving my client of residential custody." Defense counsel responded by asserting that the parties were

The proceedings continued to be conducted from this point on in the same informal manner that characterized the December 21, 2012 hearing. The attorneys continued to make conflicting factual representations to the judge without any competent evidence to support them. Plaintiff's counsel pressed the judge to reaffirm his prior ruling and order, and reaffirm plaintiff's role as the residential custodial parent. As the following passage indicates, however, in making this argument plaintiff's counsel implicitly conceded defense counsel's claim that the child was, as a matter of fact, residing on a fulltime basis with his father:

This vitriolic exchange of unsupported accusations by the attorneys continued throughout this hearing, interrupted intermittently only by the judge's acknowledgment of any particular statement. At one point, defense counsel stated:

Plaintiff's counsel continued to press for enforcement of the judge's supposed "final decision" requiring residential custody to remain with plaintiff and relisting the matter only for a determination of the parenting time arrangement. Plaintiff's counsel concurred with the judge's decision that taking testimony from the parties in a formal evidentiary hearing, subject to cross-examination "is not going to resolve anything." With respect to the suggestion that the judge interview Jeremy, plaintiff's counsel stated:

Several more transcript pages later, defendant addressed the judge directly as follows:

The judge then asked defendant if certain variations with the days of the week in the custody order would be likely to obtain Jeremy's compliance. This prompted defendant to respond: "We can put in another order, but I'm almost certain that we'll be right back here again because he will not abide by it." Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel again pressed the court to reaffirm what he claimed to have been the court's prior order, giving plaintiff full residential custody of her son. With respect to defendant's admonition, emphasizing the likelihood that Jeremy would "not abide" the court's order, plaintiff's counsel argued that "[t]his child has to be encouraged and pushed to comply with the order." (Emphasis added).

This prompted the following response by the judge:

On January 17, 2013, just one week after the court's order, plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) against defendant before a different judge seeking Jeremy's return by "8:00 p.m. on January 18, 2013." Plaintiff submitted a certification claiming defendant had "completely disregarded" two court orders and as a result, she had not seen her son in ten days. To induce the court to issue this emergent relief, plaintiff averred that defendant: (1) refused to bring Jeremy to her home; (2) rebuked her efforts to retrieve Jeremy; (3) "almost never answers" her phone calls; and (4) had told Jeremy not to come home.

On January 15, 2013, plaintiff sent her sister to pick up Jeremy at defendant's home, and "[w]hen she was unsuccessful, [her sister] called the police." Plaintiff did not have any personal knowledge of what transpired when police officers arrived at defendant's home in response to her sister's call. Despite this legal impediment, plaintiff averred to the judge who issued the OTSC that "[s]hortly after the officers arrived, [defendant] told them that we were still `waiting for a decision' and the `court process is still going on.' This was a blatant, bold-faced lie!!!"

Plaintiff asked the OTSC judge to issue a warrant for defendant's arrest if he failed to comply with the emergent relief she was seeking. The judge who entered the OTSC awarded plaintiff custody of Jeremy "until further order," and set the matter down for a hearing on January 24, 2013, before the first judge.

IV

The Third Hearing

The trial judge opened this hearing by expressing his regrets that the OTSC had been entered on the week he was on vacation. After this short preliminary remark, the judge addressed the parties and counsel directly stating: "[Y]ou guys can appeal me you can do whatever you want, but I'm going to say something. This is coming to an end. One way or the other. Today this is over. That's the preface."

Despite the judge's resoluteness and good faith efforts, the informality and disregard for the rules governing judicial proceedings continued unabated. By way of example, in response to the judge asking plaintiff's counsel "what's been going on since [Jeremy] has been with your client over the past week?", counsel responded: "[Jeremy told] my client ... `I have no problem living by this 50/50 arrangement if you stop my father's child support.'" This brazen attempt at impugning defendant's credibility with incompetent hearsay evidence was left unchallenged by defense counsel, and apparently accepted by the judge without reservation. In fact, in response to plaintiff's counsel's assertion, the judge noted: "I'm concerned about what you raised about the child support statement."

This prompted some discussion about whether the provision in the 2002 Consent Order addressing child support should be amended to reflect the current joint-custody arrangement the judge had ordered on January 10, 2013. The discussion returned to the issue of custody, and plaintiff's counsel claimed that things between Jeremy and his mother were going "smooth." Plaintiff's counsel also made the following representation to the court:

When asked by the judge to respond, defense counsel immediately seized upon his adversary's characterization of things going "smooth" between Jeremy and his mother to claim that in fact the converse was the case. According to defense counsel, "rough" was a more apt description of what had taken place since the police arrived at his client's home. Defense counsel noted the irony in this situation, because it was plaintiff's counsel who argued against the judge interviewing Jeremy in chambers to avoid exposing him to the traumatic experience of seeing armed police officers in the courthouse. At plaintiff's request, local police officers responded two times to defendant's home in the seven-day period between the January 10, 2013 hearing and the January 17, 2013 OTSC.

Defense counsel claimed to have seen text messages sent by Jeremy to his father asking him repeatedly to come and pick him up and take him away from plaintiff's home. According to defense counsel, Jeremy decided on his own to walk to his father's home, which is located approximately three miles from plaintiff's residence. Again, following the consistent theme of this case, counsel's representation was unsupported by competent evidence. This prompted the judge to speculate: "Maybe he got ill because of all this constant bickering ... between the mother and the father."

After again drifting into discussions concerning child support, plaintiff's attorneys responded to defense counsel's comments concerning Jeremy:

At this point, the judge interrupted defense counsel to advise both attorneys that he had received that day a "case blurbs from the bar association" concerning an unpublished opinion from this court. According to the judge, in this non-precedential decision this court reversed the Family Part for failing to interview a fifteen-year-old child in a matter involving a change of custody application. The judge conceded that he did not have the full opinion, but immediately thought of this case after reading the synopsis. To his credit, the judge candidly admitted that he had been reticent to interview Jeremy because he wanted to spare the child the emotional trauma associated with his parents' feud.

The judge continued:

Defendant's counsel indicated his client was "open to mediation"; plaintiff herself made clear she was not. Following plaintiff's unequivocal rejection, defense counsel indicated his client was equally unwilling to submit to this alternative process. Despite the judge's best efforts to convince them to change their minds, they remained committed to their position not to mediate.

V

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration

On January 31, 2013, defendant filed a motion requesting the court to: (1) reconsider the January 10, 2013 order; (2) grant defendant primary residential custody of Jeremy; (3) order the parties to submit to mediation; (4) interview Jeremy; (5) reinstate the parenting time that prevailed from September 2012 to the end of 2012; and (6) modify defendant's child support obligation commensurate with his status as a parent with primary residential custody.

Defendant's motion came before the trial judge on March 18, 2013. The attorneys recounted the tortured procedural history of the case, and continued to make unsupported factual allegations. Conspicuously missing from this exchange is any reference to legal authority supporting or undermining the arguments advanced by either side. No statute, court rule, or case law was cited. At the conclusion, the judge again reaffirmed his previous order and declined to interview Jeremy.

VI

Legal Analysis

Against this record, defendant now appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to order the parties to submit to mediation as required under Rule 5:8-1, and failing to consider and apply the factors outlined in N.J.S.A. 9:3-4 before reaching a final decision on who should be Jeremy's primary residential custodial parent.

We start our legal analysis by reaffirming that "the best interests of the child" is the fundamental legal principle that will guide our review of this case. Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317-18, 696 A.2d 556 (1997). This overarching consideration — "best interests of the child" — was defined by our Supreme Court nearly fifty-nine years ago as a paramount judicial responsibility to consider and safeguard "the safety, happiness, physical, mental and moral welfare of the child." Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 536, 122 A.2d 593 (1956). The Legislature has also adopted the "best interests of the child" standard as a matter of public policy. See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

Determining what custodial arrangement is in the best interest of a child requires the Family Part judge to apply the statutory factors outlined in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, as complimented by the relevant court rules governing an award or change of custody, and reach a conclusion that is supported by the material factual record. "Absent exigent circumstances, changes in custody should not be ordered without a full plenary hearing." Faucett v. Vasquez, 411 N.J.Super. 108, 119, 984 A.2d 460 (2009), certif. denied, 203 N.J. 435, 3 A.3d 1225 (2010) (citing R. 5:8-6).

Our Supreme Court has noted that, as a general proposition, we should accord great deference to discretionary decisions made by Family Part judges, provided they are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence in the record. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13, 713 A.2d 390 (1998). A proper exercise of judicial discretionary authority "connotes conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action; it takes into account the law and the particular circumstances of the case before the court." Higgins v. Polk, 14 N.J. 490, 493, 103 A.2d 1 (1954).

Here, our extensive examination of the record developed before the Family Part over three separate hearings did not reveal any instance in which the trial judge applied, considered, or even mentioned any of the relevant statutory and regulatory standards to determine whether a change in residential custody was in the best interest of this then fourteen-year-old boy. The Family Part's unexplained departure from the established policies governing change of custody applications leaves us with no other alternative but to remand this matter for the court to consider and apply the required procedural guidelines.

A

Mediation

With respect to mediation, Rule 5:8-1 makes clear that "[i]n family actions in which the court finds that either the custody of children or parenting time issues, or both, are a genuine and substantial issue, the court shall refer the case to mediation in accordance with the provisions of [Rule] 1:40-5." (Emphasis added). In order to provide a reasonable and meaningful opportunity for mediation to succeed, the trial court should confer with counsel and thereafter enter a case management order: (1) identifying the issues the mediator should address to resolve the parties' custodial dispute; and (2) setting an initial two-month deadline to report back as required under Rule 5:8-1, with the proviso that this time period can be extended "on good cause shown." Ibid. Although the parties are not required to present expert opinion testimony during the mediation process, they are free to agree otherwise. Ibid. In short, the court must give the parties and the mediator all rights conferred under Rule 5:8-1.

The case management order must also include a clear and definitive date for ending the mediation process. Ibid. The trial judge is ultimately responsible for the progress of any litigation. The judge thus remains in control of the case at all times, and must guard against either party abusing the mediation process by treating it as tactic to delay, frustrate, or otherwise undermine the custodial or parenting time rights of the adverse party.

Given the parties' acrimonious relationship, as reflected in the manner they have behaved throughout this litigation, it appears to us unlikely that mediation will be successful. However, a professionally trained mediator is capable of creating an environment that fosters compromise over intransigence, enabling these litigants to subordinate their emotionally-driven personal interests to the higher needs of their teenaged son to have both of his parents involved in his life. That being said, when the mediation process fails to reach a timely acceptable outcome, the court needs to quickly and decisively reassert its authority over the case.

B

Plenary Hearing

The record we have described here in great detail illustrates the parties have asserted what the judge correctly characterized as "diametrically" opposing positions regarding what type of custodial arrangement would be in the best interest of their now sixteen-year-old son. Plaintiff claims defendant's home life has been and continues to be dominated by domestic violence, which places her son in a physical danger and creates an emotionally chaotic home environment, rendering defendant utterly ill-suited to be Jeremy's residential custodial parent.

Defendant has refuted these allegations and claims plaintiff's overly confrontational, needlessly punitive parenting style has alienated Jeremy from his mother to such an extent that the teenager is not willing to reside with her. As an example of plaintiff's alleged inappropriate parenting-behavior, defendant "told" the trial judge that plaintiff has at times used excessive corporal punishment to discipline Jeremy. According to defendant, Jeremy's age and level of maturation has reached a point that it would be physically futile and emotionally counterproductive to force him to live with his mother by judicial decree.

Given the parties' allegations, and to assist the trial judge in reaching the exquisitely difficult decision concerning what kind of residential custodial arrangement would be in Jeremy's best interest, we strongly suggest the court consider appointing an independent mental health professional to evaluate the current psychological and emotional state of Jeremy and his parents. Rule 5:3-3(b) provides the trial judge with the discretionary authority to appoint a mental health expert to perform parenting/custody evaluations of the parties and Jeremy. The mental health expert appointed by the court is mandated to conduct a "strictly non-partisan" evaluation to opine what would be in the child's best interests. Ibid. Such an evaluation "should consider and include reference to criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, as well as any other information or factors they believe pertinent to each case." Ibid.

We conclude our discussion of this issue by cautioning the trial court that reports by mental health care experts may at times include the expert's opinion or recommendation to the court on the ultimate question of custody. These experts may also believe, or outright express in their reports, that their professional training and experience gives them unique insights into the dynamics of troubled families, and they may urge the court to adopt their recommendations or at least defer to their professional judgments on the issue of custody and/or parenting time. Although the opinions of mental health practitioners or of any other professionals in the various fields related to the human psyche should be carefully considered by a judge when appropriate, such opinions do not relieve the trial judge from the ultimate responsibility of determining what type of custody arrangement is in the best interest of the child. The burden of making and explaining that decision remains at all times the exclusive obligation of the trial judge and can never be delegated to any other party. See Mackowski v. Mackowski, 317 N.J.Super. 8, 13, 721 A.2d 12 (App.Div.1998) ("Ceding fact-finding responsibility to another party dilutes our ability, as judges, to decide issues based on the `best evidence' [of the child] available.").

C

Interviewing Jeremy

The record here shows that at various times during the multiple hearings conducted by the trial judge both the parties and attorneys made allegations, proffers, and representations describing Jeremy's emotional state concerning his various interactions with the parties and their respective spouse and/or "significant other." The central figure in this family drama is unquestionably this now sixteen-year-old juvenile. Both parties made glowing representations to the trial judge about his intellectual attributes, his academic prowess, and his emotional maturity. Unfortunately, both sides have also claimed Jeremy has been significantly harmed while in the physical custody of the other parent, and will be exposed to even greater harm if forced by the court to reside with the other parent.

In our view, the discretionary authority conferred to the trial judge under Rule 5:8-6 was precisely intended to be exercised in cases such as this one. We recognize a previous version of Rule 5:8-6 provided that "the [trial] court shall ... at the request of a litigant conduct an interview with the child(ren) if the child(ren) are age 7 or older." Mackowski, supra, 317 N.J.Super. at 11, 721 A.2d 12 (emphasis added). We also acknowledge that at the recommendation of the Family Practice Committee and based, in part, on the reasoning expressed by our colleague Judge Kestin in his concurring opinion in Mackowski,4 the Supreme Court amended Rule 5:8-6, effective September 3, 2002. The rule now reads as follows:

By replacing the word "shall" in the pre-2002 version of the Rule with the word "may," the Supreme Court made clear that the decision whether to interview a child in a contested custody case is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, which, as in all matters affecting children, must be guided by the best interest of the child. The Rule also provides that "in the absence of good cause," the trial judge should decide whether to interview the child before the start of the trial.5 Ibid.

Of particular relevance here, Rule 5:8-6 also contains equally clear, non-discretionary mandates:

Without belaboring the point, the record developed before the trial court shows no effort by the trial judge to comply with these requirements. Although the Rule also directs that a certain protocol be followed if the judge decides to interview the child, these issues are not relevant here because the judge's ambivalence about whether to interview Jeremy left us without a reviewable record on the vital threshold issues.

In the interest of providing the Family Part with some guidance on how to address the difficult discretionary decision of whether to interview a child, we suggest our colleague at the trial level consider the following words written by Judge Carchman in Mackowski over sixteen years ago:

As we noted earlier, the amendment to Rule 5:8-6 making the decision to interview a child in a custody dispute discretionary by the judge came to past in part by recommendations made by the Family Practice Committee. Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comments on R. 5:8-6 (2015). The report of the Family Practice Committee included the recommendations of the Custody and Parenting Time Subcommittee that formed, at least in part, the basis for amendments to Rule 5:8-6 adopted by the Supreme Court in 2002. The Subcommittee's report emphasized and contrasted the Rule's then inflexible command for the trial judge to interview a child who was at least seven years old, with the more balanced and sensitive approach endorsed by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

This criticism of the Rule's inflexibility before the 2002 amendment was well-founded. By contrast, the preamble to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 describes the public policy underpinning its requirements and strikes the proper balance to guide the court in its implementation:

Towards that end, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) provides:

This statute identifies the key elements the Family Part Judge must address when confronted with the awesome responsibility of deciding who should have custody of the child. The Supreme Court has made clear that "in all custody determinations, the preference of the children of `sufficient age and capacity' must be accorded `due weight.'" Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 501, 432 A.2d 63 (1981). Given Jeremy's age, alleged emotional maturity, and level of intelligence, the trial judge here was clearly required to take into consideration Jeremy's feelings and desires concerning where and with whom he should live. At the very least, Rule 5:8-6 required the judge to place on the record his reasons for not interviewing this fourteen-year-old boy. Peregoy v. Peregoy, 358 N.J.Super. 179, 206, 817 A.2d 381 (App.Div.2003).

If the judge elects to interview Jeremy, (as the prevailing circumstances here strongly indicate he should), Rule 5:8-6 mandates the court to: (1) conduct an interview with the child in camera7; (2) "afford counsel the opportunity to submit questions for the court's use during the interview"; (3) "place on the record its reasons for not asking any question thus submitted"; (4) create and preserve a stenographic or recorded audio record of each interview in its entirety; and (5) provide transcripts of the interview(s) to counsel and the parties8 upon request and payment for the cost. Ibid.

The court should also ensure and make clear that "neither parent" is permitted "to discuss nor reveal the contents of the interview with the children or third parties without permission of the court." Ibid. We recommend the court enter a case management order to memorialize this particularly important aspect of the interview process. This order must make clear that any violation of this confidentiality provision may expose the responsible individual to sanctions pursuant to either a motion to enforce litigant's rights brought by a party under Rule 1:10-3, or Summary Contempt Proceedings initiated by an Order to Show Cause under Rule 1:10-2.

We sympathize with the trial judge's consternation and share his concern for the emotional trauma Jeremy may experience during the interview process. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) does not require the judge to ask a child to select between two opposing parents. The statute only requires the judge to consider the child's "preference," when he or she is "of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision[.]" In going about this exquisitely delicate task, we strongly suggest trial judges to keep in mind Judge Carchman's wise observations in Mackowski:

The Supreme Court has recognized that Family Part judges have developed a special expertise in dealing with family and family-type matters. Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 412-13, 713 A.2d 390. We have complete confidence that this judge, indeed all of the judges assigned to the Family Part, will strive to conduct the difficult task of interviewing children in contested custody cases with dignity, compassion, and great sensitivity to the extraordinary circumstances that have brought this child before the court.

VII

Conclusion

The record shows the trial judge was unaware that under Rule 5:8-1 he was obligated to refer this case to mediation because Jeremy's custody and parenting time were genuine and substantial issues in dispute. We are therefore compelled to remand this case for the parties to submit to mediation. The record also reveals that the parties have been heretofore utterly unwilling to subordinate their antipathy for each other and reach a compromise position that would be in the best interest of their now sixteen-year-old son.

We thus strongly suggest the trial court closely monitor the mediation process by way of periodic reports from the mediator. Unless the court is satisfied that the mediation process is producing meaningful and measurable progress, the court should reassert jurisdiction and schedule a plenary hearing forthwith. On this point, we are compelled to note that the informality that permeated all of the court's interactions with the parties and their respective attorneys here were not only unproductive, but ultimately undermined the solemnity and decorum necessary for effective courtroom management. We reaffirm the standard we articulated twelve years ago:

Here, the parties' dramatically different and conflicting factual accounts need to be carefully scrutinized by the professionally trained eyes of an experienced Family Part Judge, but only after both parties have been subjected to aggressive cross-examination, the best tool we know for clearing up obscurity, minimizing hyperbole, and revealing truth.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.