ANN BRATTSTROM v. PETER BRATTSTROM

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6412-04T16412-04T1

ANN BRATTSTROM,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PETER BRATTSTROM,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued May 16, 2006 - Decided June 2, 2006

Before Judges Lisa and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, FM-07-1191-00.

Peter H. Brattstrom argued the cause pro se.

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Peter H. Brattstrom, appeals from post-judgment orders entered on April 15, 2005, June 17, 2005, and July 20, 2005. The dispute resolved by these orders pertains to defendant's child support obligation for his three children. The April 15, 2005 order entered a judgment against defendant for $20,442 of child support arrears. That portion of the order was apparently entered pursuant to plaintiff's motion to enforce litigant's rights. The court denied defendant's cross-motion to reduce his child support obligation, which had been set several years earlier at $242 per week. The court reserved decision on some issues pending receipt of updated case information statements. The June 17, 2005 order denied defendant's motion for a stay of the April 15, 2005 order and continued all prior orders in effect. With respect to the child care expense plaintiff was incurring, the order stated:

The Court is satisfied that based on the certification submitted by Plaintiff, there is a need for utilization of an after-care provider for the children. The cost appears to be reasonable and has been factored into the child support worksheet. Defendant's argument that he should be the after-care provider is unacceptable. Defendant should focus on finding employment. Child support shall continue at $242.00 per week.

The order directed payment of the $20,442 by July 18, 2005, in default of which defendant was ordered to appear in court on July 20, 2005 to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Defendant did not pay, and on July 20, 2005, after a hearing, the court entered an order on that date setting the updated arrearage at $25,524, and ordering the defendant to pay $30,000 by August 19, 2005 from the liquidation of retirement assets available to him, of which arrears then due would be paid to plaintiff, and the balance placed in an account from which plaintiff could draw at the rate of $242 per week if unpaid by defendant.

We first comment upon the record submitted by defendant on appeal. We have been furnished with the three orders from which relief is sought, the Child Support Guidelines worksheet dated November 28, 2001, and transcripts of the hearings of April 15, 2005 and July 20, 2005. From the procedural history described by defendant in his brief, it appears that the parties were divorced in 2000 or 2001. It appears that defendant disputed entries and calculations in the worksheet from the time of the divorce and repeatedly sought reconsideration of the amount of his child support obligation. He further informs us that he has filed three prior appeals with this court, namely from orders entered by the trial court on November 27, 2001, October 3, 2001, and June 25, 2002. Defendant states that all three of his appeals were "denied." Apparently, all involved the same issues, which revolve around the calculation of his child support obligation.

Defendant informs us that another round of motions transpired in the trial in 2003, again resulting in rejection of his application for a decrease in child support. Finally, the 2005 proceedings resulting in the three orders now under review took place. However, we have been furnished with none of the moving papers, including certifications of the parties, updated case information statements, or any other documents that were presented to the trial court.

Defendant's appeal arguments pertain primarily to two aspects of the child support calculation. First, in one of the earlier proceedings, it was determined that defendant was unjustifiably underemployed and income was imputed to him over and above his actual earnings. Defendant contends that his actual income should be utilized. Second, defendant disputes the need for payment by his former wife of child care expenses, contending that he is available to care for the children when plaintiff is working. More particularly, defendant presents these arguments on appeal:

POINT ONE

RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PREVENT A SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE. THE DEFENDANT HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT NUMEROUS ERRORS IN THE CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET.

POINT TWO

THE CALCULATION OF INCOME, TAXES, NO CONTROLLED EXPENSES, HEALTH INSURANCE, AND NANNY EXPENSE ARE INCORRECT. A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRES A CHANGE.

POINT THREE

THE IMPROPER BEHAVIOR OF A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN COURT.

POINT FOUR

THE COURT MISINTERPRETED THE DEFENDANT'S POSITION OF USING HIMSELF AS WATCHING HIS CHILDREN IN PLACE OF A NANNY, BUT RATHER AS AN EXCHANGE OF TIME WITH THE PLAINTIFF, THUS SAVING COST.

POINT FIVE

A STAY ON CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE MAJOR FACTORS USED IN THE CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET HAVE BEEN INCORRECT FOR 5 YEARS. OVER 5 MOTIONS, CROSS-MOTIONS AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR A CHANGE, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED.

Based upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm the orders under review. We add these brief comments.

The arguments in Points One and Five impermissibly seek to re-litigate issues that have been previously adjudicated by this court, and we have no occasion to revisit them.

With respect to imputed income, we note that defendant is forty-nine years old, in good health, and, by profession, is a certified public accountant. Although he claims to be earning only about $13,000 per year, based upon his prior earnings, the court previously imputed to him annual income of about $55,000. When asked at the April 15, 2005 hearing why he was not working as an accountant and earning more money, as he previously had, defendant alluded to a federal court action he was pursuing and the fault of third parties. He stated: "Certain information which I'm not available to release to this State Court I can't mention at this time because it may affect certain -- certain factors that I'm unaware of and I can't give any further information on that."

The judge made this finding on April 15, 2005 in support of his decision to continue to impute income to defendant at the same level as previously determined:

I would state for the record, however, because I think it's just to clarify the issue of -- of the amount of income that Mr. Brattstrom is earning, that this Court feels clearly that Mr. Brattstrom is underemployed. It appears that Mr. Brattstrom based on his lack of -- lack of presentation of any facts to the contrary other than these dark and mysterious allegations that he's making of some sort of conspiracy or something against him that doesn't enable him to work; that Mr. Brattstrom is of an age and an occupation and training and experience and health status that he should be earning commensurate with the -- with what an accountant earns. I've made this finding before. This finding has been supported by the Appellate Division in reviewing this situation. I can see no change. Mr. Brattstrom, whatever his reasons are, has determined that he is simply going to be unemployed or underemployed. He -- he indicates that he's available to assist Mrs. Brattstrom when she needs him on those days where she has to work.

But quite frankly, there is absolutely no reason why Mr. Brattstrom should not be working. If he is going to continue to be underemployed in order to be available for his children, that is a decision that he has made and a decision that this Court will live with. However, I am not going to reduce his child support because he has made that decision. He is capable of earning much more than he's earning now. The child support appears to be reasonable under the circumstances. The Court will review it based on the submissions. But I am not going to reduce it simply because Mr. Brattstrom tells me that his child support -- his income has been reduced to $13,000.

With regard to child care expenses, we note that plaintiff works twelve-hour shifts as an intensive care nurse, and apparently documented to the trial court's satisfaction the payment of necessary and reasonable child care expenses. The record furnished to us on appeal by defendant does not provide us with this information, and we therefore have no basis upon which to disturb the trial judge's decision. It is the obligation of an appellant to furnish this court with all pertinent pleadings and portions of the trial record that are essential to a proper consideration of the issues. R. 2:6-1(a)(1).

On the record before us, we find no reason to disturb the trial judge's findings that defendant failed to establish changed circumstances based upon an inability to earn the income that was imputed to him, that the child care expenses were unreasonable or unnecessary, that child support should continue at the level previously set, or that defendant should be required to pay the arrears out of available funds.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

8

A-6412-04T1

June 2, 2006