Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1324-13T2
06-02-2015
NORAH JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAVERNE JACKSON, Defendant-Respondent.
Norah Jackson, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Lihotz and Espinosa. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-1158-99. Norah Jackson, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Norah Jackson appeals from a September 20, 2013 post-judgment matrimonial order. Plaintiff moved to emancipate the parties' child and terminate alimony payments to defendant Laverne Jackson. The judge denied the emancipation request after finding defendant's documentation showed the child was enrolled as a full-time college student. The judge recomputed the amount of child support payable by plaintiff pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, which he later calculated at $183 per week. Plaintiff's request to terminate alimony was also denied.
We correct what we view as a misstatement regarding a parent's obligation to pay child support for a child who has reached the age of majority. See N.J.S.A. 9:17B-3; Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 543 (1982) ("Attainment of ages 18 establishes prima facie, but not conclusive, proof of emancipation."). The judge stated the child merely must be enrolled in a higher education program. That is only part of the calculus. The child must be enrolled, attend, and demonstrate an ability to continue higher education. Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543 (2006); see also Moehring v. Maute, 268 N.J. Super. 477, 480-81 (Ch. Div. 1993) (holding a child past the age of majority who is a full-time student, diligent in her studies, getting good grades, and still dependent on her parents, is not emancipated and is entitled to continued financial support if the parents have the ability to pay). Enrollment alone is insufficient to continue a parent's support obligation.
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the weekly income used to compute his child support obligation.
Plaintiff raises issues not previously presented to the trial court. We decline to address these issues. See Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) ("It is a well-settled principle that our appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
--------
Our review of the underlying documentation relied upon by the judge to fix plaintiff's child support obligation reveals a gross weekly income of $1219, which is the amount plaintiff reported in his case information statement. Plaintiff's 2012 W-2 shows a gross annual income of $63,280, which is $1217 per week.
We do find an error reflected on the child support guidelines worksheet. The calculation neglected to include the alimony paid by plaintiff of $125 per week. The computation should have deducted the alimony payment from plaintiff's income and included it within defendant's income. The calculation also omitted the allocation of payments made for the child's health insurance. Thus, the child support amount of $183 is erroneous. It must be vacated and recalculated.
We cannot consider plaintiff's claim of error in computing defendant's weekly gross income. The judge failed to state the factual basis for his calculations and plaintiff neglected to include defendant's pleadings in his appendix.
In conclusion, we affirm the Family Part's order using plaintiff's weekly income of $1217; we reverse the ordered child support of $183 per week and remand to the trial judge to recalculate support accounting for the alimony payments and allocating the cost of health insurance.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION