ANNETTE T. SENGER-RUBIN v. THOMAS L. SENGER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1238-04T21238-04T2

ANNETTE T. SENGER-RUBIN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS L. SENGER,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted December 7, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Payne and Miniman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FM-09-21754-86.

Thomas L. Senger, appellant, submitted a brief pro se.

No brief was filed on behalf of respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Thomas L. Senger appeals from a September 20, 2004, order denying his motion for a change in child support and custody. Plaintiff Annette T. Senger did not file an opposing brief.

Thomas is an attorney who appears before the court pro se. He has raised the following issues:

I. THE ARREARAGE OF $1,951.43 IS INCORRECT AND UNSUPPORTED BY PROBATION DEPARTMENT RECORDS.

II. THE ISSUE OF MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT WAS CONSENTED TO BY PLAINTIFF. BEN IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CONTRIBUTION FROM HIS MOTHER AND FATHER THROUGH THE PROBATION [DEPARTMENT] OR DIRECTLY.

III. CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR THE CHILD. WHEN THE CHILD REACHES THE AGE OF MAJORITY HE HAS A RIGHT TO DIRECT PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. PROBATION HAS A DUTY TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE ADULT CHILD. THE COURT'S RULING THAT BEN SENGER IS NOT A PARTY AND SHALL NOT INTERVENE VIOLATED THE ADULT CHILD'S RIGHTS TO SUPPORT.

IV. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IS HOLDING THE CHILDREN'S FUNDS AND PAPERS AND REFUSES TO TURN THEM OVER AS ORDERED AS IF IMMUNIZED BY THE LOWER COURT.

V. THE RIGHT TO SUPPORT BELONGS TO THE CHILD NOT THE CUSTODIAL PARENT. JUDGE COSTELLO, WHILE RULING THAT THE CHILDREN SHALL PAY THEIR OWN COLLEGE EXPENSE, TUITION, ROOM, BOARD, ALLOWS CHILD SUPPORT TO CONTINUE TO THE PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATES BIAS.

VI. USING THE ARRIGO FACTORS TO DECIDE THAT APPELLANT'S CHILDREN SHALL PAY THEIR OWN "ROOF EXPENSE" IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.

VII. THE COURT IGNORED CASELAW BY IGNORING INTENT AS THE ISSUE IN DETERMINING DOMICILE.

While a matter is on appeal, the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider any of the issues on appeal. R. 2:9-1(a). Nevertheless, while this appeal was pending, the parties appeared before the trial court on January 14, 2005. From our review of the transcript of that appearance, virtually all of the issues raised on appeal have now been resolved. This makes almost all of the issues raised on appeal moot. Thomas has proven that he did pay $1,951.43 and he is to receive a credit for that payment. To the extent that there are any issues which have not been resolved to the satisfaction of Thomas, they do not merit discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

 
Other than to credit defendant for the payment of $1,951.43, affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1238-04T2

 

January 5, 2006