Opinion
J-A21032-17 No. 1695 WDA 2016
11-09-2017
ERIC JOHN ASKINS Appellee v. LISA ANN DAVISON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 5, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations at No: NS200901183/PACSES NO: 937110996 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, and STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant, Lisa Ann Davison ("Mother"), appeals pro se from the October 5, 2016 order denying her petition for modification of her child support obligation. We affirm.
The record reflects that Appellee, Eric John Askins ("Father"), filed a complaint for support of the parties' minor child on December 5, 2011. On April 23, 2012, the trial court ordered Mother to pay $649.11 per month in support, plus $90.00 in arrears. Mother has since filed several modification petitions alleging she sustained injuries in various accidents and thus was unable to work. In the instant modification petition, filed June 30, 2016, Mother alleged that she is out of work and that a car accident aggravated her existing injuries. The trial court assessed Mother's petition as follows:
Mother further testified that a January 2016 accident aggravated her neck and back injuries. Mother, however, is not credible. Since institution of the support action, Mother has repeatedly petitioned to terminate or suspend her support obligations on the basis of inability to work and, repeatedly, her own evidence has contradicted her position. In 2012, Mother petitioned for suspension of her support obligation alleging inability to work. The court denied her petition when the evidence showed that Mother, who had been denied disability benefits, was released from her physician to return to work. In 2014, Mother requested that the court terminate her support obligation as she was medically unable to work as the result of an accident. The evidence revealed, however, that Mother was released by her physician to return to work, she was fully active and her employer denied her disability claims. In 2015, Mother requested that her support obligation be suspended as she was unable to work due to injuries from another accident. The evidence showed, however, that Mother continued to work for three months after the allegedly disabling accident, forgot to see her doctor until that time, and actively engaged in Tae Kwan Do during the time that she alleged she was unable to work. With regard to Mother's present allegation of a fourth debilitating accident, she presented a Physician Verification Form, dated July 29, 2016, in support of her position that she is unable to work. As with the accident in 2015, it is clear that, once again, Mother did not seek treatment until two months after the alleged accident. Moreover, the statements written on the Form reflect Mother's perception, rather than the results of an independent evaluation. Specifically, in the section discussing Mother's inability to earn income, there is a handwritten statement indicating "Pt stated medical condition started May 11, 2015, effecting [sic] earning potential." As further detailed above, Mother is not credible. In this regard, the Court did not give the Physician Verification Form any weight.Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/16, at 6-7.
On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in denying her modification petition because she is unable to work and because she no longer has a job. Our standard of review is well-settled:
The amount of a support order is largely within the discretion of the trial court, whose judgment should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but rather a misapplication of the law or an unreasonable exercise of judgment. A finding that the trial court abused its discretion must rest upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court will be upheld on any valid ground.Portugal v. Portugal , 798 A.2d 246, 249 (Pa. Super. 2002).
The Domestic Relations Code permits modification of support orders if the requesting party demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4352(a). Rule 1910.19 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governs modification petitions. We have reviewed the record, the applicable law, and Mother's pro se brief. We conclude that the trial court's December 19, 2016 opinion accurately addresses Mother's arguments. We affirm the October 5, 2016 order on the basis of that opinion, and we direct that a copy of the opinion be filed along with this memorandum.
Father appeared pro se before the trial court and did not file a brief with this Court. --------
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/9/2017
Image materials not available for display.