is entitled to a plenary hearing to resolve the disputed facts. Hand, supra, 391 N.J.Super. at 111, 917 A.2d 269. A plenary hearing must be conducted where “the custody of children is a genuine and substantial issue____” R. 5:8-6. “[WJhen the submissions show there is a genuine and substantial factual dispute regarding the welfare of the children,” the “plenary hearing is necessary to resolve the factual dispute.” Hand, supra, 391 N.J.Super. at 105, 917 A.2d 269 (citing Shaw v. Shaw, 138 N.J.Super. 436, 440, 351 A.2d 374 (App.Div.1976)). Frequently, the factual disputes are evident based upon the conflicting certifications of the parties, or based upon evaluative reports regarding the child’s condition. See, e.g. Mackowski v. Mackowski, 317 N.J.Super. 8, 10, 721 A.2d 12 (App.Div.1998) (<HOLDING>); Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J.Super. 511, 518,
holding that certifications of parent and child regarding her desire to live with her father were sufficient to warrant a plenary hearing holding mothers drug use during pregnancy and after child was removed from her care in face of random drug testing that placed her relationship with child at risk was legally and factually sufficient evidence that she engaged in course of conduct which endangered her child recognizing that the pregnant womans ability to assert her own rights is beset with obstacles including her desire to protect her privacy holding trial court could have considered mothers desire to hurt herself and her history of noncompliance with her medication schedule as factors endangering child holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends