On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, FD-13-2126-04B.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and Chambers.
Defendant William Iovino appeals from the order dated May 9, 2007, denying his motion for reconsideration. His appeal concerns issues of child support and child care payments, visitation, and the child's last name. Since the court appears to have entered only a temporary award of child support pending further discovery, this appeal is interlocutory, and hence is not appealable as of right under Rule 2:2-3(a). We will grant leave to appeal nunc pro tunc on parenting time issues, and dismiss the balance of the appeal so that the trial court may resolve the remaining issues. Further, we note that defendant, who is appearing pro se, raises certain issues for the first time in this appeal. Defendant must first present those issues to the trial court by motion and obtain a ruling before those issues may be presented to the appellate court.
Plaintiff Marie Underwood and defendant are the parents of a child born in 2004. An order entered on July 6, 2004, gave the parties joint legal custody of the child, with plaintiff having primary residential custody. By order dated May 24, 2005, defendant was required to make child support payments of $185 per week plus $13 in arrears and to contribute one-half of the child care costs not to exceed $75 per week.
In June 2006, plaintiff removed the child from day care and thereafter hired a live-in babysitter. She then brought an application in July 2006, to increase defendant's share of the child care costs, which she claimed were $213 per week.*fn1 Her papers also raised a variety of visitation issues.
Defendant filed a cross-motion seeking an exchange of financial information so that child support could be recalculated due to changed circumstances. Plaintiff was now working, and defendant's landscaping business had sustained a substantial loss because defendant was on active military duty. Defendant also sought a reallocation of day care expenses and health insurance premium costs. In addition to other visitation issues, he sought a one-hour allowance for drop-off and pick-up time.
The motions were heard on November 13, 2006. Testimony was taken from plaintiff, and certain financial documents and information were presented to the court. The court then calculated support based on the guidelines, but clarified that the order it was putting into place was only temporary pending further discovery. The order dated November 13, 2006, required defendant to pay $325 a week in child support. The order required defendant to provide copies of his tax returns for the past three years. The order also contained various provisions concerning visitation which are also the subject of this appeal.
On December 4, 2006, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration.*fn2 Defendant's application for reconsideration of the financial issues and visitation issues was denied by order dated May 9, 2007. His application with respect to counseling and certain telephone numbers was granted. The order of May 9, 2007, also indicated in various sections that information for such items as plaintiff's employment, proof of payments, child care visits and other matters "may be obtained through discovery." The trial court issued a written statement of reasons explaining its decision.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
DAY CARE: PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE HER WORK RELATED DAY CARE EXPENSES (ie work schedule); COURT NEVER FACTORED A CREDIT FOR EXPENSES DEFENDANT ALREADY PAID PRIOR TO COURT ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006; ...