TERRENCE E. GILCHRIST VS. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,ETC.(DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0009-15T1
TERRENCE E. GILCHRIST,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
Respondent.
___________________________________
Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided October 20, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.
On appeal from the Department of Human
Services, Office of Child Support Services.
Terrence E. Gilchrist, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Francesco Ferrantelli, Jr., Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Terrence E. Gilchrist appeals from a June 5, 2015 order of
the Office of Child Support Services rejecting his challenge to
a Notice of Levy against his account at the State Employees
Credit Union of Maryland (SECU) for past due child support. The
levy was served on the credit union in March 2015 by the
Administrative Enforcement Unit of the Office of Child Support
Services, which provided Gilchrist notice of his right to
contest the action. Gilchrist contested the levy claiming,
among other reasons, it would impose "an extreme hardship,"
"diminish [his] capacity as a secondary caretaker," and
"contradict[ed] the State's public policy regarding child
custody." The Office of Child Support Services rejected his
claims in its June 5, 2015 order. Gilchrist appeals that order
to this court.
Four months after this appeal was filed, however, the
credit union advised the Administrative Enforcement Unit that
Gilchrist's account was closed when the Enforcement Unit
attempted to levy upon it. The Enforcement Unit wrote promptly
to Gilchrist, advising that as there were no funds available to
levy, "no levy was imposed against your account." Accordingly,
because Gilchrist's account was never levied upon, his appeal of
the June 5, 2015 order is moot. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust
Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22 (App. Div. 2011)
("We consider an issue moot when 'our decision sought in a
matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the
2 A-0009-15T1
existing controversy.'") (quoting Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of
Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)).
Gilchrist concedes that on the date of the levy his credit
union account had already been closed for several months, and
thus the account was never levied on. Nevertheless, he contends
we should reverse the bank levy determination, as well as
several other determinations and actions of the Office of Child
Support Services; suspend all enforcement remedies; "render a
declaratory judgment about the technical arrears"; "recommend
consideration of the issue by the Family Practice Committee of
the Supreme Court"; and "remand to the Superior Court in the
respective vicinage of venue." Because there is no live
controversy and no reason to do any of those things Gilchrist
suggests on this narrow record, we decline to consider the
matter further.
Appeal dismissed.
3 A-0009-15T1