NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4575-17T2
LAWRENCE JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
QIANA M. BROWN-MORGAN,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted April 1, 2019 – Decided May 29, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket
No. FD-20-1707-14.
Lawrence Jenkins, appellant pro se.
Qiana M. Brown, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Lawrence Jenkins appeals from the trial court's April 27, 2018
order requiring plaintiff to pay $26 per week in child support payments to
defendant Qiana M. Brown. Plaintiff presents the following points for our
review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE
CALCULATION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT AND
ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO PAY DEFENDANT
WEEKLY CHILD SUPPORT AND ARREARS THAT
DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO UNDER THE PROPER USE OF THE
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
RULE 1:13-1 [sic]. EVEN IF PLAINTIFF
EXCEEDED THE TWENTY-DAY LIMIT TO FILE
FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ORDER, THIS
COURT SHOULD CORRECT THE TRIAL COURT'S
DECISIONS, RECALCULATE SUPPORT BASED
ON THE APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL
INFORMATION, [AND] ORDER PLAINTIFF A
REFUND OF ARREARS PLUS ERRANT
PAYMENTS OF SUPPORT.
III. ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
SHARE JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY WITH A 50/50
CUSTODY SCHEDULE, THE TRIAL COURT
SHOWED PARTIALITY IN DESIGNATING THE
DEFENDANT AS A PRIMARY PARENT OF THE
MINOR CHILD WHICH PRODUCED A BIAS[ED]
RESULT.
With the exception of plaintiff's contention that the trial court utilized the
incorrect child support guidelines, we find that plaintiff's arguments lack
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e) (1) (E).
A-4575-17T2
2
As for the child support guidelines, the trial court stated on the record that
it would utilize the shared parenting time worksheet to recalculate child support .
However, only a sole parenting worksheet is contained in the appellate record.
The sole parenting worksheet is date stamped September 1, 2017 and indicates
that the non-custodial parent owed weekly child support of $102. Because the
appellate record is ultimately unclear as to whether the sole parenting time
worksheet was utilized in conjunction with the April 27, 2018 order, we
summarily remand this matter to the trial court to ensure that the sole parenting
time worksheet was utilized and to recalculate child support in accordance with
the shared parenting time worksheet if necessary.
Remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-4575-17T2
3