Ferris, R. v. Petri, M.
1443 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 6, 2016Background
- Mother (Maryanne Petri), an ER nurse, and Father (Ralph Ferris) are parents of three children; parents divorced in 2004 and previously shared custody.
- In 2013 a court assessed Mother an earning capacity of $3,521.57/month and entered a child-support award (Mother did not appeal that order).
- After an indicated child-abuse report, Father obtained primary custody in 2015; domestic relations entered an interim support order awarding Father $789/month based on imputing the same earning capacity to Mother.
- Mother sought a de novo support trial, testified she lost clearances, was suspended Jan–Jul 2015, returned with reduced hours (one 4‑hour shift/week) citing anxiety/depression, and attempted to introduce physician verification forms.
- Trial court excluded the physician verification forms as untimely under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.29(b)(2), found Mother’s reduction in hours voluntary/unsubstantiated, imputed full‑time earning capacity, and entered the $789/month award.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court properly considered the Rule 1910.16‑2(d)(4) factors, did not abuse discretion in excluding the physician forms, and permissibly imputed earning capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petri) | Defendant's Argument (Ferris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by imputing an earning capacity instead of using Mother’s actual income | Mother: earning capacity was wrongly applied because loss of CPSL clearances and mental health issues prevented work | Father: prior earning capacity is appropriate; Mother’s actual earnings are inconsistent with training and history | Court: affirmed imputation of earning capacity after considering Rule 1910.16‑2(d)(4) factors |
| Admissibility of physician verification forms | Mother: forms showed anxiety/depression limiting work and should have been considered | Father: forms were not timely served and admission was improper | Court: exclusion was proper under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.29(b)(2); no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court mischaracterized the proceeding as a modification | Mother: mischaracterization tainted analysis and required different standard | Father: prior assessment remains relevant and rule permits imputation here | Court: mischaracterization was harmless; same Rule 1910.16‑2(d)(4) factors apply |
| Whether assessing full‑time earning capacity was unfair given Mother’s historical part‑time work | Mother: historically worked ~20 hrs/week while family intact; full‑time imputation unreasonable | Father: mother’s training, wage rate, and past hours support higher earning capacity now that custody changed | Court: imputation reasonable because past history, training, and wage rate support full‑time earning capacity; mother failed to mitigate or substantiate inability to work more hours |
Key Cases Cited
- Gephart v. Gephart, 764 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2000) (defines earning capacity and factors to consider)
- R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2013) (child support primary goal is best interests of children)
- E.R.L. v. C.K.L., 126 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental duty to support children is absolute)
- Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (standard on parental support obligation and review)
- K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2015) (review of trial court's evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)