SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5037-18T1

SHIRLEY J. CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JULES L. CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted September 23, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Accurso and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, 

Docket No. FD-03-1612-04.

Jules L. Campbell, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Jules L. Campbell appeals from the June 7, 2019 order that 

fixed his child support arears in the sum of $24,512.68, in United States dollars 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 7, 2020
2

A-5037-18T1

(USD), pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:4-

30.124 to -30.201 (UIFSA). We affirm.

Defendant, a New Jersey resident, argues New Jersey did not have subject 

matter jurisdiction to enforce his outstanding child support obligation. He also 

complains he was not given a fair hearing before his arrears were established,

that the motion judge failed to abide by Australian law, and that there was 

fraudulent "spoliation of evidence, the intentional hiding of the law of the 

issuing state." We are not persuaded.

The parties were married in Australia and divorced in 1989. Their 

daughter was born in April 1987. As we detailed in our prior opinion, Campbell 

v. Campbell, 391 N.J. Super. 157 (App. Div. 2007) (Campbell I), based on a 

consent agreement entered in January 1990 in the Australian Family Court, 

defendant was directed to pay child support in the monthly sum of $150

Australian dollars (AUD).

On February 25, 1997, the Family Court of Australia entered and 

registered an order with the Australian Child Support Agency (CSA), modifying 

defendant's child support obligation to $120 per week AUD. The order provided

his support obligation would be "suspended during any periods [ex-husband] is 
3

A-5037-18T1

able to provide documentary evidence that he is registered with the CES and 

gainfully seeking employment."1 Id. at 159.

In March 2004, plaintiff petitioned the New Jersey courts to enforce 

defendant's support obligation. Even though the child support order had been 

registered, due to procedural problems, it was vacated in June 2004. Defendant 

appeared pro se in August 2004 to argue against registration of the order and in 

favor of an abatement of his arrears. The record reflects that at that hearing, 

defendant conceded he had not paid child support since 1997 and that if he 

wanted to modify his child support obligation, he needed to seek such relief 

before the issuing authority, i.e., the Australian courts. See N.J.S.A. 2A:4-

30.135(a); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.178(c). Aware of UIFSA's parameters, the 

motion judge in New Jersey properly registered the order, directed defendant to 

pay his weekly child support obligation and to pay down his arrears. 

Campbell I, 391 N.J. Super. at 159. Importantly, no appeal was taken from this

2004 order.

In January 2006, defendant filed a motion in New Jersey to vacate the 

registered order. The trial court denied his application, and in 2007, we affirmed 

1

 The acronym, "CES," refers to the Commonwealth Employment Service.
4

A-5037-18T1

the denial. Id. at 164. No appeal was taken from our decision. Also, in 2006, 

the CSA issued a statement declaring:

[t]his case ended on 7 April 2005, when liable child [] 

turned 18 years of age, which is the age of emancipation 

in Australia. However, this case remains open in 

Australia, until the debt is paid in full.

 

[Defendant] has never made any effort in paying his 

liability voluntar[il]y to the Australian Child Support 

Agency. He has informed our department, that the 

reason he left Australia was to avoid paying his 

maintenance, and to escape enforcement action in 

Australia.

Additional enforcement proceedings occurred in 2017, but defendant did 

not appeal from, or seek reconsideration of the enforcement orders resulting 

from those proceedings. Subsequently, in April 2019, the Australian 

government submitted a letter and "registration statement" to the Family Part in 

Burlington County, seeking enforcement of defendant's child support obligation. 

The registration statement confirmed defendant's arrears totaled $24,512.68 

USD, and the cover letter stated, "the debt is owed to the receiving parent 

[plaintiff]. Our position is to ensure the debt is collected and forwarded to 

[plaintiff]." The letter also specified, "we request that you continue to enforce 

the outstanding arrears." 
5

A-5037-18T1

At an enforcement hearing on June 3, 2019, the same motion judge who 

presided over an enforcement hearing in 2017 addressed defendant's child 

support obligation and considered his objection to a writ of execution. After 

taking testimony from defendant, the judge found Australia was "the country 

with [continuing exclusive jurisdiction]," and that based on Australia's 

certification, defendant owed child support arrears of $24,512.68 USD. 

"[W]e accord great deference to discretionary decisions of Family Part 

judges[.]" Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184, 197 (App. Div. 2012). 

This is due to the "family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family 

matters." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). However, "[a] trial court's 

interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established 

facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. 

Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

UIFSA provides "unity and structure in each state's approach to the 

modification and enforcement of child support orders," both nationally and 

internationally. See Youssefi v. Youssefi, 328 N.J. Super. 12, 20 (App. Div. 

2000) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 666(f)). For enforcement purposes, New Jersey may 

register a support order issued by an initiating tribunal as a foreign judgment. 

N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.168. To contest the validity or enforcement of a registered 
6

A-5037-18T1

order, the non-registering party must request a hearing within twenty days after 

notice of the registration. N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.172(b)(2). The non-registering 

party may seek to vacate the registration, assert defenses to the registered order, 

or contest the remedies or amounts. N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.173. The defenses to the 

validity or enforcement of a registered order include that "the issuing tribunal 

lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party[.]" N.J.S.A. 2A:4-

30.174(a)(1). Once an order from an initiating tribunal is registered, New Jersey 

will recognize that state's continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. N.J.S.A. 2A:4-

30.133(c). See Campbell I, 391 N.J. Super. at 162-64.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.175, "[c]onfirmation of a registered support 

order, whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further 

contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at 

the time of registration." Moreover, "the law of the issuing state[,]" rather than 

the law of New Jersey, continues to govern "the nature, extent, amount, and 

duration of current payments under a registered support order." N.J.S.A. 2A:4-

30.171(a)(1). Additionally, New Jersey is to "prospectively apply the law of the 

. . . foreign country issuing the controlling order," N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.171(d), and 

the law of the foreign country governs "the computation and payment of 

arrearages." N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.171(a)(2).
7

A-5037-18T1

Consistent with UIFSA, and as we noted in Campbell I, New Jersey 

properly registered the child support order in 2004. After our 2007 decision, 

additional enforcement proceedings occurred, up to and through 2019, and the 

orders resulting from those proceedings were not reconsidered or appealed. 

Thus, contrary to defendant's argument, the mere fact that the parties' daughter 

reached majority in 2005 did not divest New Jersey of its authority to continue 

to enforce Australia's support order. Indeed, New Jersey was obligated to ensure 

defendant's arrears were satisfied, pursuant to Australia's documented request in 

2019 that New Jersey "continue to enforce the outstanding arrears." 

Accordingly, we perceive no basis to disturb the June 7, 2019 order. 

To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, we 

find they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R.

2:11-3(d)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.