Opinion
J-A28004-17 No. 1426 EDA 2017 No. 1487 EDA 2017
04-06-2018
S.T.M. Appellant v. J.N., III Appellee S.T.M. Appellee v. J.N., III Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated March 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2011-00392, PACSES No. 091112286 Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2011-00392, PACSES NO: 091112286 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, S.T.M. ("Mother"), and Cross-Appellant, J.N., III ("Father"), appeal and cross-appeal from the order entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which modified Father's child support obligations. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and accurately sets for the relevant facts and procedural history. Therefore, we have no need to repeat them. We add certain observations from the record. The parties have been locked in ongoing disputes over child support arrears, invoking judicial resources time and again. The current feud stems from Father's petition to modify the amount of child support arrears in a March 18, 2015 support order and Father's challenge to increased tuition costs for the parties' middle child, A.N., to attend a new high school. After two days of hearings, the trial court entered on March 21, 2017, a support order reducing the amount of Father's child support arrears and requiring Father to contribute to A.N.'s tuition. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, and Father filed a timely notice of cross-appeal. The court ordered the parties to file respective concise statements of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); the parties complied.
At No. 1426 EDA 2017, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REDUCING THE CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS OF [FATHER], BY A TOTAL OF $16,989.23 CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW, EVIDENCE WITHIN THE RECORD AND ESTABLISHED POLICIES OF THE DELAWARE COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE?(Mother's Brief at 11).
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ORDERING FATHER TO CONTRIBUTE TO [A.N.]'S PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION WHERE FATHER AGREED THAT [A.N.] COULD AND SHOULD ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOL, [A.N.] HISTORICALLY ATTENDED PRIVATE SCHOOL, AND FATHER COULD AFFORD TO CONTRIBUTE TO PRIVATE SCHOOL COSTS?
At No. 1487 EDA 2017, Father raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MODIFYING FATHER'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION TO INCLUDE THE TUITION OF A NEW AND SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PRIVATE SCHOOL [TUITION], WHERE THE SAME WAS NOT REASONABLE AS: (1) FATHER WAS ALREADY PAYING FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION FOR THE SCHOOL THAT [A.N.] CONSISTENTLY ATTENDED SINCE KINDERGARTEN AND WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE ATTENDING; AND/OR (2) THE COST OF THE NEW SCHOOL'S TUITION WAS NOT REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE PARTIES' INCOME AS WELL AS FATHER'S SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN INCOME; AND/OR (3) MOTHER WAS SEEKING THE CHANGE TO THE NEW SCHOOL BUT FAILED TO MEET HER BURDEN TO SHOW A BENEFIT TO [A.N.]; AND/OR (4) MOTHER UNILATERALLY ENROLLED [A.N.] OVER FATHER'S OBJECTION AND IN VIOLATION OF JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY[?](Father's Brief at 1-2).
Our standard review of child support orders is well settled:
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 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.Krebs v. Krebs , 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Mencer v. Ruch , 928 A.2d 294, 297 (Pa.Super. 2007)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Dominic F. Pileggi, we conclude the parties' issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 22, 2017, at 17-36) (finding: (Mother's Issue 1) structure of arrears determination in March 18, 2015 support order demonstrates court did not intend to set arrears at $15,235.52 or any "sum certain"; rather, court intended Domestic Relations Office to recalculate Father's arrears, based on retroactive support amounts contained in March 2015 support order, status of previous arrears at time of order, and Father's payments under terms of any previous support obligation; sum of $15,235.52 represents amount March 2015 order required Father to make in initial lump sum payment toward overall support arrears; further, this Court previously held lump sum payment of $15,235.52 was not "sum certain"; based on foregoing, handwritten reference in March 2015 support order to $31,566.52 in arrears is also not "sum certain"; (Mother's Issue 2/Father's Issue) both parties testified quality of Children's education is very important; evidence demonstrated parties recognized A.N.'s previous high school was substandard; before Mother enrolled A.N. in another school, Father was aware A.N. had taken entrance exam for different school and bought A.N. study guide book; in email to Mother, Father indicated he did not oppose sending A.N. to different high school and noted quality and costs associated with potential new school were important to Father; Father, however, did not participate in search for new school; subsequently, Father failed to challenge Mother's placement of A.N. in new high school for several months; during search for new school and after A.N.'s enrollment in new school, Father failed to exercise his rights as shared legal custodian of A.N.; based on foregoing, Father's argument that he did not consent to Mother enrolling A.N. in new high school fails; regarding increased tuition associated with A.N.'s new school, Father's earnings amounts to $210,000.00 per year; Father's total monthly support obligation, including tuition, is $3,682.91, approximately 32% of Father's net monthly income; in light of Father's income, cost of A.N. attending new school, and benefit to A.N. in attending new school, increase in Father's contribution to tuition is reasonable). The record supports the trial court's rationale, and we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/6/18
Image materials not available for display.