MELANIE M. TAFARO v. STEPHEN T. TAFARO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

MELANIE M. TAFARO, n/k/a

MELANIE M. MILLER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN T. TAFARO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

January 22, 2014

Argued December 17, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Koblitz.

On appeal from New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-942-12.

Stephen Tafaro, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Stephen T. Tafaro appeals from the provisions of a July 16, 2012 order and August 31, 2012 order denying reconsideration setting a temporary level of child support without prejudice to a plenary hearing and denying his application to retroactively adjust child support from 2007 when the parties' two children entered college. We affirm.

We previously reversed a trial court decision denying defendant's application to emancipate his son and remanded for a plenary hearing. Tafaro v Tafaro, A-6134-10 (App. Div. June 13, 2012). At that time we noted that, "Following a seventeen-year marriage, the parties divorced in 2004. They have two children. Their eldest child, a son, was born in 1989." Id. slip op. at 2. Before conducting the plenary hearing, the parties' daughter was emancipated and the trial court consequently reduced defendant's support obligation to reflect a temporary continuing obligation to support his son only, pending the plenary hearing to determine that child's emancipation status. Defendant complains that this temporary, interlocutory order is unfair. He did not file a motion for leave to appeal and we find no reason to review the interlocutory order "in the interest of justice." R. 2:2-4. We do not consider this claim.

Defendant's other claim is that the motion judge should have granted his application for a retroactive reduction in child support to 2007 due to both children's attendance at college. Defendant acknowledges that he previously raised this issue in one of his numerous appeals and we found no merit at that time. The "law of the case" doctrine operates to avoid relitigation of the same issue before the same court in the same controversy. In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008). Once we decide an issue, defendant's only recourse is to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 2:2-1.