Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3240-10T4
02-07-2013
PETER ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAWN MARIE BALL (f/k/a DAWN ALVAREZ), Defendant-Appellant.
Dawn Marie Ball, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Messano and Ostrer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-0323-94.
Dawn Marie Ball, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant Dawn Ball appeals from a Family Part order entered January 14, 2011, denying her motion to vacate a previous order that she states vacated the obligation of her former husband, Peter Alvarez, to pay child support.
We glean the following from the record before us. Ball gave birth to a child on February 24, 1993. In response to Ball's non-dissolution complaint, the Family Part in Union County entered an order by default on March 16, 1993, granting Ball custody, and awarding her $70 a week child support. Alvarez was apparently in the military. The order stated, "Defendant failed to appear although noticed. He earlier admitted paternity in court. Family Part to process allotment or wage execution through military employer." The child support amount was increased to $613 a month by another non-dissolution order entered June 15, 1993, which stated that Alvarez left before the hearing was completed.
However, the parties had married on March 30, 1993, according to Alvarez's complaint for divorce filed just five months later. He described a tumultuous relationship preceding their marriage. He acknowledged the child was born of their relationship, and alleged, "In order to stop Dyfus [sic] from taking their child [he] consented to marriage in the hopes that they could work out their problems." Alvarez alleged he had been paying child support, despite Ball's claims to the contrary.
A final judgment of divorce was entered November 16, 1993, which granted custody of the child to Ball's aunt, subject to Alvarez's visitation. The judgment ordered Alvarez to continue to pay child support pursuant to the order entered in the non-dissolution case, as well as a domestic violence matter, although the domestic violence order has not been presented to us.
Presumably, the child support was payable to the aunt who had custody of the child, but we have no evidence of who was the payee. Ball states in her brief that she was "incarcerated in Pennsylvania (and still is) and in New Jersey on numerous occasions." She alleges in her brief that at some point, Alvarez obtained an order vacating his child support obligation, without notice to her. However, that order has not been presented to us.
What we do have is an order from September 1999, dismissing a complaint against Alvarez under a new non-dissolution docket number, by the State on behalf of Grace Monteleone, who is identified as the maternal grandmother. The order stated that the "paternity affidavit is defective; grandmother can not [sic] attest to facts establishing paternity." It is unclear whether the court was aware of the prior orders in the matrimonial case, and the earlier non-dissolution matter. We were not supplied with the 1999 complaint, but presume Monteleone was attempting to obtain child support payments.
We also have a March 2000 order in connection with an application filed under the parties' matrimonial docket number, by the Union County Board of Social Services on behalf of Ball. The order indicated that Ball was still incarcerated as of January 2000, Monteleone had custody of the child, and she was receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF benefits through Northampton County, Pennsylvania. We therefore presume any child support would have been payable at that time not to Ball or Monteleone, but to the social services agency paying the benefits for the child. The court carried the matter for thirty days, to allow officials to attempt to confirm Alvarez's paternity.
No subsequent orders have been provided to us, other than the January 14, 2011 order, which Ball appeals, and an order denying reconsideration, which she does not. The court's January 14, 2011 order denied Ball's motion "to Reinstate Paternity, Child Support and Child Support Arrears." Ball does not provide us with any certification that may have been filed in support of her motion. According to the order, Alvarez did not file any opposition to the motion. The court's January 14 order stated, "The Court will not reverse the previous order entered regarding these issues under Docket FD-20-1447-96[.]" She alleges FD-20-1447-96 was "not mine," but she does not provide us with the order that she claims terminated Alvarez's support obligation.
Rule 2:6-1(a)(1) requires that an appellant's appendix include "such . . . parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues, including such parts as the appellant should reasonably assume will be relied upon by the respondent[.]" Here, defendant claims the trial court erred in entering the January 14, 2011 order, but she has not provided us with what she provided to the trial court, to enable us to review the trial court's decision.
She seeks to vacate an order that she asserts terminated Alvarez's child support obligation without notice to her, but does not provide us with that order. Moreover, as Ball has been incarcerated for extended periods of time, any child support would apparently be payable to someone else, such as the aunt, the maternal grandmother, or a social service agency to reimburse assistance for the child.
When procedural deficiencies prevent meaningful appellate review, dismissal is appropriate. In re Zakhari, 330 N.J. Super. 493, 495 (App. Div. 2000); Cherry Hill Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 194 N.J. Super. 282, 283-84 (App. Div. 1984). Because defendant has failed to include in her appendix the requisite documents to inform our appellate review, we dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION