Kimock v. Jones
47 A.3d 850
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Father appeals denial of petition to terminate child support following a custody order (Feb. 8, 2011) granting Mother sole physical and legal custody and restricting Father’s contact.
- Prior custody history: initial custody order (Aug. 12, 2005) gave Mother primary physical custody and shared legal custody; reunification therapy failed.
- Dr. Esteve diagnosed Father with bipolar disorder; Father refused further psychotherapy.
- From 2005 to 2009 Father had no contact with Child; reunification efforts resumed in 2009-2011 with therapy and hearings.
- February 8, 2011 order stated restrictive contact and indirect access to records but did not extinguish all parental rights; court left potential for future reunification.
- Court held that the custody order did not terminate parental rights and that no material and substantial change in circumstances justified terminating child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did custody order terminate parental rights for support relief? | Jones argues the order ended his parental rights equivalently to termination under Adoption Act. | Court distinguished custody and termination standards; custody order did not extinguish parental rights or override support duty. | No; restrictive custody did not effectively terminate rights, and no material change justified terminating support. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (distinguishes custody vs. termination standards of review)
- Kauffman v. Truett, 771 A.2d 36 (Pa. Super. 2001) (termination effects on support obligations)
- Yerkes v. Yerkes, 573 Pa. 294, 824 A.2d 1169 (2003) (absolute duty to support; best interests not sole consideration)
- Brickus v. Dent, 5 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and support goals)
- Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (burden to show material and substantial change rests with movant)
- Anzalone v. Anzalone, 449 Pa. Super. 201 (Pa. Super. 1996) (custody vs. support considerations; duration of responsibility)
- Luzerne County Children and Youth Services v. Cottam, 412 Pa. Super. 268, 603 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1992) (support obligation independent of custody status)
- DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa. Super. 280, 529 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 1987) (time with child does not reduce support obligation)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 425 Pa. Super. 508, 625 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1993) (obligation to support persists despite child’s treatment of parent)