May 20, 2011
JEANNE GALANEK FABIAN, APPELLANT,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, RESPONDENT.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 9, 2011
Before Judges Lisa and Alvarez.
Appellant, Jeanne Galanek Fabian, appeals from the December 3, 2008 final decision of the New Jersey Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Family Development (DFD), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), upholding a levy on appellant's bank account in the amount of $475 for past due child support. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
As the responsible entity in New Jersey for child support collections and enforcement under the New Jersey Child Support Program Improvement Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.7a to -56.66, OCSS sent to the Bank of America a notice of levy on September 18, 2008, instructing it to encumber appellant's account to the extent of $475, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a and N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.57. This levy was pursuant to Family Court records submitted to OCSS certifying that appellant was in arrears in child support payments in the amount of $475.28.
On September 24, 2008, OCSS sent appellant a notice of the levy, which contained advice as to the method by which she could file an administrative contest of the action. Appellant availed herself of the right to contest, and on October 29, 2008 filed with OCSS an administrative appeal. She alleged lack of notice of the levy before her bank account was seized. She also claimed hardship.
After an administrative review, OCSS confirmed that the Family Court records continued to show the outstanding balance on appellant's child support obligation of $475.28. OCSS was not obligated to notify an obligor prior to issuing a levy on his or her bank account. Finally, appellant failed to provide any documentation or other corroboration of her claimed hardship circumstances.
Accordingly, on December 3, 2008, OCSS notified appellant that the levy was upheld, this constituted the final agency action. This appeal followed.
Appellant summarizes her arguments as follows:
That my Human, Civil and Constitutional Rights, and those of my children, have been violated by the unlawful theft of funds kept at Bank of America by New Jersey and its Departments, assisted by Robert Van Lingen and Bank of America, creating defamation, harassment, deprivation, torture (as defined by Constitution) and irreparable injury and harm incurred by conspiracy, prejudice and deception by the Defendants and their unethical actions, including, but not limited to; fear, threats, causing instability, sickness and inability to proceed economically due to cumulative expenses, loans, fees, charges, interest and reducing credibility, etc. I have, and will, continue to seek compensation, reparation and damages for my ordeal and punitive damages for Defendant's negligent behavior towards an entire 2nd family. List of Prominent Issues:
1.) Nonexistence of Notice before Levy
2.) Due Process
3.) Right to Counsel
4.) Right to transcript of proceeding
5.) Right to Appellate Review
6.) Right to be Compensated A party on appeal is obligated to present an adequate legal argument in support of his or her position. State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294, 296 (App. Div. 1977). Appellant has failed to meet this obligation. Her arguments are lacking in merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Further, our scope of review of agency decisions is a narrow one. We will not upset a final agency decision unless shown that the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it violated legislative policies expressed or implied in the act governing the agency, or unless the decision was not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). From our review of the record, we are satisfied that the decision of OCSS was based upon substantial credible evidence, that it was consistent with the applicable provisions of the New Jersey Child Support Program Improvement Act, and that it was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, we have no occasion to reverse the decision.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.