Carter, T. v. Carter, T.
3817 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Father sought termination of child support for his son Troy II (born 1994) after age 21, arguing Troy II was not incapacitated to the degree requiring continued support.
- Support master recommended denying Father’s petition; trial court held a de novo hearing and ordered Father to pay $1,986.57/mo (plus $100 retro add-on = $2,086.57) effective May 26, 2015.
- Evidence included Troy II’s SSI award, school district psycho-educational re-evaluation, and a psychiatric evaluation diagnosing autism and mild intellectual disability.
- Troy II functions at approximately a 3rd–4th grade reading level, has limited arithmetic, requires paratransit, and needs ongoing functional, social, and financial support.
- Trial court credited medical and educational evaluations (and SSI as persuasive evidence) and found Troy II cannot engage in profitable employment sufficient for self-support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Troy II) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Troy II is physically/mentally incapable of profitable employment | Troy II lacks capacity for self-support due to autism/intellectual disability and expert testimony supports continued support | Father argued disability is mild and evidence (including older psychological report) insufficient to prove inability to work profitably | Court held Troy II is incapable of profitable employment; continued support required |
| Whether employment at a supporting wage is available | Not necessary to decide because Troy II cannot engage in profitable employment | Father argued availability must be shown; contested two-part test under Style | Court declined to reach availability because incapacity was dispositive |
| Whether Troy II met burden to overcome presumption that support ends at emancipation | Troy II showed incapacity and thus rebutted presumption | Father raised the presumption and argued insufficient proof | Issue effectively resolved for Troy II; Father’s separate briefing on this point was deemed abandoned/waived |
| Whether SSI receipt ($733/mo) required downward deviation from guideline support | SSI should not offset guideline support because child’s assets need not be used when parent can pay; SSI only covers basic needs | Father sought downward deviation, treating SSI as household income and reducing Father’s obligation | Court exercised discretion not to deviate: Father’s high net income made full guideline support appropriate despite SSI |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and purpose of child support)
- Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2009) (deference to factfinder on credibility/weight)
- Kotzbauer v. Kotzbauer, 937 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 2007) (continuing support where disability prevents self-support even if some employment exists)
- Com. ex rel. Cann v. Cann, 418 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 1980) (adult child with disability entitled to support where income insufficient for self-support)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 625 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1993) (support may continue post-majority for mentally/physically disabled child)
- Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2008) (two-part test: capacity to engage in profitable employment and availability of supporting-wage jobs)
- Ricco v. Novitski, 874 A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. 2005) (child’s assets not used to reduce parental obligation where parent can reasonably pay)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (medical expert opinion may be considered by court)