Opinion
J-S58034-15 No. 2120 MDA 2014
09-30-2015
L.T.C. Appellee v. N.A.T. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered November 13, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 02016 SA 2007
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, N.T. ("Father"), appeals from the order entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, reinstating Father's obligation to pay child support to Appellee, L.T.C. ("Mother"), for the parties' minor daughter. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Father timely filed a notice of appeal on Monday, December 15, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the court ordered Father to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Father timely filed on December 31, 2014.
Father raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTED ERROR IN TERMINATING THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WHERE [FATHER] IS AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN WHO HAS OVERSTAYED A FINAL REMOVAL ORDER AND THEREFORE HAS NO WORK AUTHORIZATION?(Father's Brief at 6).
Our standard of review over child support orders is as follows:
When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one's child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child's best interests.Kimock v. Jones , 47 A.3d 850, 854 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Brickus v. Dent , 5 A.3d 1281, 1284 (Pa.Super. 2010)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Andrea Marceca Strong, we conclude Father's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 7, 2015, at 2-5; Order Reinstating Child Support, filed November 13, 2014, at 1) (finding: in 2011, court ordered Father to pay child support; Father did not appeal that order; Father filed instant petition for modification of child support order, claiming he is facing deportation and if he lists his social security number on employment papers, authorities will find him and deport him; on this basis, Father alleged he cannot work or pay child support; based on his deportation status, Domestic Relations Section terminated Father's child support obligation and cancelled Father's arrears; Mother filed appeal for hearing de novo; at de novo hearing, Father did not demonstrate by competent evidence material and substantial change in his circumstances; Father has been subject to deportation since 2004; Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denied Father's first motion to reopen deportation proceedings in 2006, and denied Father's second motion to reopen in 2012; in support of petition for modification of child support, Father presented BIA order dated September 30, 2013, denying Father's third motion to reopen deportation proceedings, which Father claimed constituted "final" deportation order; most recent BIA order is not "final" deportation order; rather, BIA denied Father's third attempt to reopen deportation proceedings as untimely and number-barred, where aliens are entitled to file only one motion to reopen, within 90 days; Father was subject to deportation in 2011 when court entered prior child support order in this case, and still facing deportation at de novo hearing; thus, Father did not demonstrate material and substantial change in circumstances to warrant modification of child support order; contrary to Father's statements, court did not demand that Father obtain illegal employment in United States, or that employers in this country hire Father despite his deportation status; Father is not "unable to work" where he can seek employment in his country (Jamaica); thus, court properly reinstated Father's child support obligation). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Father did not attend the hearing, but his counsel was present and offered argument on Father's behalf.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2015
Image materials not available for display.