On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FD-07-3887-03.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Reisner and Alvarez.
On June 23, 2009, defendant Larry J. Yates, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a Family Part order entered on June 12, 2009. On October 30, 2009, he was granted leave to amend his notice of appeal to include a levy, coincidentally issued on June 10, 2009, against his checking account, seeking payment of child support arrears. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the June 12, 2009 order and dismiss his appeal of the levy as moot pursuant to Rule 2:8-2.
Defendant seeks appellate review of the many prior orders issued in the non-dissolution proceedings related to the parties' children, now ages nine and twelve. Our Court Rules require appeals to be taken within forty-five days of entry of a final judgment or order. R. 2:4-1(a). Interlocutory orders can only be appealed on leave granted, which must be sought within twenty days of the entry. R. 2:5-6(a). Therefore, we will not consider defendant's extensive arguments regarding alleged errors contained in various earlier orders issued by several judges. The time to appeal expired long before this appeal was filed. We therefore address only the June 12, 2009 order and the levy.
Defendant faces similar procedural impediments to his appeal from the denial of his various requests for leave to proceed as an indigent. For defendant's future reference, we nonetheless explain that he is not entitled, even if indigent, to free transcripts for the purpose of the appeal of child support and visitation orders. See In re Adoption of a Child by J.D.S., 176 N.J. 154 (2003) (distinguishing termination of parental rights and abuse and neglect cases); In re Civil Commitment of D.L., 351 N.J. Super. 77, 92 (App. Div. 2002) (free transcripts are available in cases involving involuntary civil commitments), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 373 (2004).
Defendant initially raised these points in his brief:
POINT I DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDERS
A. PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF ARE DEFICIENT
B. TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPLY PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW
C. INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS SUA SPONTE IS HARMFUL ERROR
D. JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NEVER MET
E. OCSS FAILED TO PROVIDE AGENCY ...