Opinion
J. A16039/18 No. 295 EDA 2018
08-02-2018
SUSAN A. KASSIS, Appellant v. TERRANCE KASSIS
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order, November 30, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No. 2015-10272 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Susan A. Kassis ("Mother") appeals pro se from the November 30, 2017 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that denied her exceptions to the master's recommendation and order of child support. We affirm.
The record reflects that Terrance Kassis ("Father") filed a petition to modify child support. The support master held a hearing. The record reflects that at the time of that hearing, Father had full custody of C.K., the parties' six-year-old special needs child ("Child"). Mother resides in California and had not seen Child for two years. Father lives alone with Child; tends to Child's special needs; provides Child's health insurance; and arranges for Child to attend psychotherapy, play therapy, and summer day camp. Because Father works full-time to support Child, Father employs two nannies on a year-round basis at an hourly rate of $15. The record reflects that nanny care is necessary at various times during the year, such as after school, during school breaks, after summer day camp, and during the summer when summer day camp is not in session.
Following the hearing, the support master filed a written recommendation and basic child support order directing Mother to pay $474.37 per month plus $146.29 for her share of Child's health insurance, $319.96 for her share of childcare costs, and $87.29 for her share of Child's recurring medical expenses, for a total monthly child support order of $1,027.91. Mother filed timely exceptions, which the trial court denied. Mother then erroneously filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court transferred the appeal to this court. Although the trial court did not order Mother to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), it did file a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
In her brief to this court, Mother fails to include a statement of questions presented on appeal. A reading of Mother's brief, however, reveals that she is unhappy with the amount of the child support order. Indeed, Mother expressed her displeasure with that amount during oral argument on this matter. Having determined, however, after careful review, that the learned Judge Emanuel A. Bertin, in his December 29, 2017 Rule 1925(a) opinion, ably and comprehensively disposes of Mother's issues on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and without legal error, we affirm on the basis of that opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/2/18
Image materials not available for display.