On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-0495-00. Michelle P.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Graves and Messano.
Defendant Michelle P. Friedman, n/k/a Frank, appeals from the Family Part's order of August 31, 2010 (the August order) resulting from a hearing conducted upon our remand. Friedman v. Freidman, No. A-6381-08 (App. Div. June 21, 2010). The August order set plaintiff Joel Friedman's child support obligation in the weekly amount of $192, effective November 1, 2008. On September 22, 2010, the parties executed a consent order (the consent order) wherein they agreed to share "joint legal custody" of their two children, with plaintiff serving as the parent of primary residence. Pursuant to paragraph thirteen of the consent order, "the issue of plaintiff's parenting time . . . during the defendant's parental week [wa]s reserved pending a hearing to be scheduled by the court." The consent order contained other provisions that are not relevant to the issues presented on appeal.
The parties appeared before the judge on October 4, 2010 for a plenary hearing, after which the judge entered an order setting defendant's child support obligation to plaintiff at $4 per week, effective September 22, 2010 (the October order).*fn1 As per its terms, "The Child Support Guidelines -- Sole Parenting Worksheet used in determining [the support amount] [wa]s attached to th[e] order."
Defendant's notice of appeal, filed on October 4, sought review of the August order only; however, we granted her subsequent motion to amend her notice of appeal to also include the October order.
Before us, defendant raises the following issues:
THE COURT ERRED IN USING THE CHILD SUPPORT WITHHOLDING CHART WHEN CALCULATING PLAINTIFF'S (A SELF[-]EMPLOYED ATTORNEY) TAX LIABILITY, INSTEAD OF ACTUAL TAXES PAID AS SHOWN ON HIS TAX RETURN.
POINT 2 THE COURT ERRED IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF PLAINTIFF'S INCOME AS SHOWN ON HIS TAX RETURNS.
POINT 3 THE COURT ERRED WHEN SETTING NOVEMBER 1, 2008 AS THE RETROACTIVE DATE TO WHICH PLAINTIFF'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS TO BE ADJUSTED.
POINT 4 THE COURT IMPROPERLY APPLIED Wunsch-Deffler
v. Deffler, 406 N.J. Super. 505 (Ch. Div. 2009) TO RETROACTIVELY ...