Angela M. Cafferata v. Abdel M. Abdalla

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-4104-23

ANGELA M. CAFFERATA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ABDEL M. ABDALLA,

Defendant-Appellant. ________________________

Submitted February 25, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026

Before Judges Gummer and Jacobs.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FD-18-0355-17.

Abdel M. Abdalla, self-represented appellant.

Respondent did not file a brief.

Defendant Abdel M. Abdalla appeals from a June 28, 2024 order requiring

him to pay thirty-nine percent of unreimbursed child-related expenses. He also challenges the inclusion of $5,111.99 in his child-support arrears and asks this

court to reverse or modify the trial court's child-support order. We affirm.

I.

Plaintiff and defendant, who were never married, share one son, born in

2005. The parties ended their relationship in 2007. Since then, they have

engaged in protracted litigation over child support.

Following the parties' 2007 separation, defendant married in 2017 and

lives with his wife and their two daughters. According to defendant, his wife

has been unemployed since October 2023, making him the household's sole

provider. He has repeatedly alleged plaintiff submitted fraudulent bills for their

son's extracurricular activities and sought downward modification of his support

obligations. On April 28, 2023, Judge Christopher Troxell adjusted defendant's

child-support obligations, calculating his share of unreimbursed child-related

expenses at thirty-nine percent.

Defendant moved for reconsideration of Judge Troxell's ruling. On June

25, 2024, the parties appeared before Judge Dalya Youssef, who addressed the

motion for reconsideration and simultaneously adjudicated plaintiff's cross-

application to enforce litigant's rights and modify child support. Defendant

sought a $5,111.99 credit, alleging certain billings for child-related activity

A-4104-23 2 expenses were fraudulent, and requesting a further reduction or elimination of

his child-support obligations. He also sought to hold plaintiff responsible for

all "exorbitant" child-related expenses over $250 per year.

Following the June 25 hearing, Judge Youssef entered a June 28 order

denying defendant's motion. The judge declined to revisit alleged fraudulent

bills for child-related expenses, finding those allegations had been addressed in

previous motions and an associated criminal investigation against plaintiff.

Additionally, the judge found defendant's support obligations for his other

children had already been adequately considered in the April 2023 recalculation

of defendant's support obligations. Accordingly, the judge granted plaintiff's

cross-motion to enforce litigant's rights, adding various unreimbursed expenses

to defendant's arrears, including costs for their son's contact lenses, laptop, car

insurance, and vehicle maintenance. She determined the automobile expenses

constituted college costs, as their son was commuting to college. The judge

found no basis to further modify defendant's support obligations.

Defendant timely appealed. Plaintiff did not file a merits brief in

opposition. In his merits brief, defendant reiterates his claims of fraudulent

billing, changed circumstances, and excessive or unnecessary expenses. He

A-4104-23 3 argues the court erred in denying him restitution for the $5,111.99 in child-

support payments for purportedly fraudulent expenses, stating:

[t]he court's decision to add $5,111.99 to defendant's arrears was made without proper verification of the billing for [his son]'s extracurricular activities. . . . This lack of verification, coupled with [p]laintiff's conviction, suggests that the arrears were unjustly imposed. The court must either investigate the unverified billing or provide restitution to [d]efendant by crediting the $5,111.99 [back to his child support arrears.]

Defendant further contends plaintiff's criminal conviction in October 2022

for forgery and fictitious billing entitles him to a credit for these amounts. He

also asserts the court should have reduced or eliminated his child-support

obligations in light of his wife's unemployment and responsibility for two

additional children. He challenges the orders requiring him to pay thirty-nine

percent of his son's college expenses, car insurance, and contact lens costs,

arguing those expenses are unnecessary, excessive, or should be his son's

responsibility given his age and employment. Moreover, he contests the court's

order for continued child support absent his having been provided his son's

academic records.

A-4104-23 4 II.

We review a Family Part judge's findings of fact with deference,

recognizing the court's special expertise in family matters. Cesare v. Cesare,

154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). We will not disturb factual findings unless they are

"manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and

reasonably credible evidence . . . ." Id. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc.

v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Where there is "sufficient credible

evidence present in the record[,] . . . [we] should not disturb the result[.] . . ."

Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 496 (1981) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146,

161-62 (1964)). We review legal conclusions de novo. Rowe v. Bell & Gossett

Co., 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019).

"The Family Part's 'substantial discretion' in determining child support

applies equally to compelling a parent to contribute to their child's college

costs." Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574, 588 (App. Div.

2016) (quoting Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 308 (App. Div.

2008)). "We must accept the Family Part's determination concerning a parent's

obligation to contribute toward college tuition, provided the factual findings are

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and the judge has

A-4104-23 5 not abused his or her discretion." Ibid. (citing Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 547

(2006)).

Child-support awards are governed by Rule 5:6A and the child support

guidelines in Appendix IX-A. "The guidelines may be modified or disregarded

. . . only where good cause is shown." R. 5:6A. The party seeking modification

bears the burden of demonstrating changed circumstances warranting an

alteration in the prior order. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 420 (1999) (citing

Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980)). The trial court's decision to modify or

deny modification of child support "will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly

unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the

result of whim or caprice." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 326 (2013) (quoting

Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012)).

Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial

court's denial of defendant's requests for restitution or further modification of

his child support obligations.

Restitution for Alleged Fraudulent Billing

Defendant's claim for a $5,111.99 credit is based on his assertion that

plaintiff submitted forged or fictitious bills for Boy Scouts and summer camp,

which were added to his child-support arrears. The record reflects plaintiff was

A-4104-23 6 criminally prosecuted and convicted for submitting fraudulent tutoring bills.

Although a copy of the judgment of conviction is not in the record, the transcript

of a December 21, 2020 proceeding before the Family Part indicates a judge

credited defendant with $1,300 toward child-support arrears, based on a finding

that plaintiff had submitted fraudulent expenses.

In denying defendant's application for further credits, Judge Youssef

explained:

[t]his was already the subject of prior court orders and criminal investigation/charges. The court will not continue to revisit prior orders from years earlier. Further, proofs attached to defendant's certification involve Branchburg Recreation Dep[artment], not Boy Scouts or Branchburg Sports Complex. There is no proof that because the child was involved with one organization that he could not have attended programs at another organization on different days and times.

The record supports the judge's finding that defendant's claims regarding

fraudulent billing were previously litigated and credited against arrears and that

there was no basis to reopen those orders or grant further credits against

arrearages. In this context, Judge Youssef stated:

THE COURT: I'm dealing with the present. So . . . is [there] anything in the present bills and invoices that you believe are perjury or forgery --

[DEFENDANT]: I haven't seen any.

A-4104-23 7 THE COURT: -- or incorrect?

[DEFENDANT]: It took me five years to figure that one out.[1]

THE COURT: I gave you previous authority to contact the Cohens Fashion Optical for the --

[DEFENDANT]: Well she's returned an order before. I have – they told me that she purchased it and it was returned. She purchased contact[ lenses] for a whole year['s] worth --

THE COURT: Not prior, the current ones.

[DEFENDANT]: Current[,] I haven't been able to check it yet.

From this exchange, we discern defendant was unable to produce proofs

regarding post-conviction fraud. Contrary to defendant's assertion, it is not the

court's obligation to "either investigate the [alleged] unverified billing or

provide restitution" to the payor. As the judge later ruled, it is instead for

defendant to raise specific allegations supported by proofs—that the judge

specifically authorized defendant to access—in connection with any suspected

fraudulent expense. We are therefore satisfied the judge did not abuse her

discretion in denying defendant relief.

1 Defendant's reference to "that one" is not clear to this court. Presumably, defendant is referring to the fraudulent bills that constituted the basis of the criminal prosecution against plaintiff. A-4104-23 8 Modification of Child Support Obligations

The record reflects Judge Troxell recalculated defendant's support

obligations in April 2023, taking into account his wife's income and the needs

of his two daughters. Judge Youssef found defendant's financial circumstances

had not changed since that recalculation and no further modification was

warranted.

Judge Youssef's findings are supported by the record. Defendant's wife's

unemployment began in October 2023, after the most recent recalculation, but

defendant did not present evidence of a substantial change in his own income or

ability to pay. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). The judge reviewed defendant's

financial documents and found his income unchanged. As noted, the judge also

found the needs of defendant's other children had already been considered by

Judge Troxell in setting the current percentage in his April 2023 order. We

perceive no error in these findings.

College Expenses, Car Insurance, and Contact Lenses

Defendant challenges the judge's order requiring him to pay a percentage

of his son's college expenses, car insurance, and contact lens costs. In particular,

the judge found the car expenses were properly deemed college expenses, as the

son was commuting to school. The judge also found defendant's share

A-4104-23 9 concerning all three categories of expense was consistent with previous orders

and the child-support guidelines. The judge advised defendant, however, he

could challenge specific charges on a particularized basis by adducing proof of

fraud or exorbitance.

The judge's legal conclusions are supported by the record and applicable

law. See Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. at 113, 120 ("there is no presumption that a

child's required financial support lessens because he or she attends college[;]"

the guidelines may be applied to students over eighteen who commute to

college) (quoting Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.

Court Rules, App. IX-A to R. 5:6A, at 2513-14 (2012)). See also Avelino-

Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. at 588.

In sum, we conclude Judge Youssef's findings are supported by adequate,

substantial, credible evidence in the record. See Avelino-Catabran, 445 N.J.

Super. at 588. The judge carefully considered the parties' financial

circumstances, the needs of the child, and the applicable law. Defendant has not

demonstrated the court's orders were manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unsupported by the evidence. See J.B., 215 N.J. at 326.

A-4104-23 10 To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's

remaining arguments, they "are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in

a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-4104-23 11