Jeske, A. v. Jeske, W.
1000 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 17, 2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2020; three minor children (then ages 11, 9, 7) have attended Somerset Christian School (SCS) since before separation and remain enrolled.
- December 2020 Domestic Relations order set monthly support; Father later challenged income calculation but withdrew the demand; Mother objected and appealed that withdrawal.
- Trial court hearing held July 2, 2021; July 28, 2021 order required Father to pay 79% of the reduced total tuition ($10,262.50) for 2021–2022 and established a built-in arrearage for 2020–2021.
- The order contained a mathematical/typographical error: 79% of $10,262.50 equals $8,107.37, but the order listed $8,177.37; the Superior Court remanded to correct that error.
- Father appealed, raising three issues: (1) incorrect tuition amount/not accounting for fundraising credits; (2) trial court failed to consider his separate support obligation to another child in Cambria County; (3) error in requiring him to pay private religious school tuition despite his objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court used an incorrect tuition amount by failing to deduct fundraising credits | Mother maintained the reduced tuition figure was accurate and Father offered no contrary evidence; fundraising credits are uncertain and not established. | Father argued fundraising credits (which he cannot easily earn due to travel) should reduce his tuition share and that the court used an incorrect amount. | Court affirmed use of Mother's tuition figure and allocation of 79%; found Father presented no evidence of specific credits and fundraising credits are speculative and discretionary. |
| 2. Whether the court abused discretion by not considering Father’s separate Cambria County support obligation | Mother implicitly maintained the issue was not before the court and underlying obligation was not contested at the hearing. | Father argued the $360/month support for another child should reduce his obligation here. | Waived. The claim was not litigated at the July 2 hearing; Father may seek modification of the separate order but cannot raise it on this appeal. |
| 3. Whether the court erred in ordering contribution to private religious school tuition despite Father’s objection | Mother argued private schooling is reasonable, benefits the children, predated separation, and is consistent with the family’s standard of living. | Father argued he objects to the children’s attendance and should not be required to pay. | Affirmed. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(d) and controlling precedent, private school can be a reasonable need and allocated between parents; record supported reasonableness and prior family practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.P.D. v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of appellate review in support matters and goal of serving children’s best interests)
- Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (expenses outside basic support may be allocated if reasonable and beneficial to the child)
- Murphy v. McDermott, 979 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009) (private schooling may be a reasonable need if it benefits the child and fits family’s pre-separation standard of living)
- Francis v. Francis, 517 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1986) (test for whether private school cost is a reasonable need and parental expectation)
- Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court’s credibility and factfinding role in support determinations)