Commonwealth v. Reckefus

6 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth ex Rel. v. Remensnyder

    99 Pa. Super. 155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930)

    M.J. Hosack, for appellant, cited: Commonwealth v. Harry E. Gillmore, 95 Pa. Super. 557. M. Barney Cohen, for appellee, cited: Commonwealth v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117. Argued April 28, 1930.

  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Yeats v. Yeats

    79 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)   Cited 21 times
    In Commonwealth ex rel. Yeats v. Yeats, 168 Pa. Super. 550, 79 A.2d 793 (1951), this Court refused to consider the financial resources of a maternal grandparent in setting a support order.

    ex rel. Teitelbaum v. Teitelbaum, 160 Pa. Super. 286, 50 A.2d 713) and a mother cannot, by contract, bargain away the right of her minor child to adequate support, to the relief of the father, irrespective of the legality of the agreement between the parents themselves. Com. ex rel. Rey v. Rey, 159 Pa. Super. 284, 286, 48 A.2d 131; Com. v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117."

  3. Commonwealth ex rel. Voltz v. Voltz

    76 A.2d 464 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1950)   Cited 14 times

    ex rel. Teitelbaum v. Teitelbaum, 160 Pa. Super. 286, 50 A.2d 713) and a mother cannot, by contract, bargain away the right of her minor child to adequate support, to the relief of the father, irrespective of the legality of the agreement between the parents themselves. Com. ex rel. Rey v. Rey, 159 Pa. Super. 284, 286, 48 A.2d 131; Com. v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117."

  4. Com. ex Rel. Rossi v. Rossi

    53 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947)   Cited 25 times

    ex rel.Teitelbaum v. Teitelbaum, 160 Pa. Super. 286, 50 A.2d 713) and a mother cannot, by contract, bargain away the right of her minor child to adequate support, to the relief of the father, irrespective of the legality of the agreement between the parents themselves. Com. ex rel. Rey v. Rey, 159 Pa. Super. 284, 286, 48 A.2d 131; Com. v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117. The liability of the respondent under the present order is wholly unaffected by the terms of the separation agreement limiting his obligation to relatrix to the payment of $50 per month. Barbara at the time of the hearing was enrolled as a boarding pupil in Mt. Mercy Academy in Pittsburgh at a monthly cost, for tuition and other proper charges, of $65.40. Respondent approves the school but objects to the expense; his judgment is that she should attend the academy as a non-resident day-pupil. Under the circumstances the placement of this child in a boarding school was proper.

  5. Commonwealth ex Rel. Singer v. Singer

    193 A. 320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)   Cited 6 times

    The record is barren of any specific testimony as to the cost of maintenance. In determining such an order, we should have some information as to the condition, needs and necessities of the child and what is a reasonable cost of maintenance, having in mind the principles we have above stated: Com. v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117, 121. The order of the lower court is so modified and amended that the husband shall be directed to pay the sum of $10 per week as of May 19, 1934 and upon further hearing, to determine what shall be a reasonable order, the same shall be effective as of January 4, 1937.

  6. In the Matter of Fred Stees

    93 Pa. Super. 232 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)   Cited 2 times

    2. The effect of the agreement needs no discussion. The welfare of the child is the dominant element in the problem before the court below; the law requires the court to consider that element; for that reason the mother's contract cannot supersede the law; see Com. v. Reckefus, 92 Pa. Super. 117, 120; Com. ex rel. v. Manning, 89 Pa. Super. 301. The order is affirmed at the cost of appellant.