Kutsch, D. v. Anthony, R., 252 WDA 2016

Mother appeals the January 19, 2016 order increasing Father's child support to $572/month retroactive to June 8, 2015 and deferring arrearages until support ends.
Initial support order in 1999 set basic support at $838/month with $50/month arrearages; childcare reimbursement of $200/month began in 1999.
2005 stipulations reduced Father’s support to $572/month with no arrearages; Father later retired from ATI (2008) and QDROs ensured payment from pension.
Mother petitioned for modification in 2010 but Court denied; case largely dormant until Father’s June 2015 modification petition alleging Mother failed to pay uninsured medical expenses.
De novo hearing held August 31, 2015; Hearing Officer imputed Mother income at $2,484.42 and kept Father’s income from pension; court increased support to $572/month due to lack of time with child.
Court’s final order ordered arrearages to be paid after basic support ends; appeal followed; standard of review affirmed

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand for a full evidentiary hearing on finances?	Mother seeks retroactive recalculation after fuller financial inquiry.	Father contends no remand warranted; credibility and findings supported.	No remand; Court did not abuse discretion; no need for further evidentiary hearing.
Use of post-retirement income to set support rather than pre-retirement earnings?	Mother argues retirement was voluntary; guideline should use pre-retirement income.	Father retired due to health; pre-retirement income not reflective of current ability.	Court properly used post-retirement income; not a blanket rule to deny modification.
Imputation of Mother's earning capacity at $35,000?	Mother challenges imputed income and lack of full factor consideration.	Record supports imputation based on prior union employment and conduct.	Imputation affirmed; no merit to challenge based on cited factors.
Failure to apply Rule 1910.16-6 for extracurricular expenses?	Rule 1910.16-6 allows adjustments for specified expenses; Mother’s claims fall outside.	Mother’s expenses do not match enumerated items; rule not applicable.	No upward deviation under 1910.16-6; claim rejected.
Best interests and credibility considerations?	Mother asks court to reassess credibility and evidence in light of inconsistencies.	Appellate review does not reweigh credibility.	Court did not err in deferring to fact-finder; best interests upheld.

Smedley v. Lowman, 2 A.3d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2010) (early retirement not automatically a modification ground; health context matters)
Novinger v. Smith, 880 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005) (criminal behavior not rewarded; incarceration or misconduct affects support obligations)
Yerkes v. Yerkes, 824 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2003) (incarceration not a change in circumstances justifying modification)
Baehr v. Baehr, 889 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2005) (credibility and weighings approved; appellate deferential standard)
W.A.M. v. S.P.C., 95 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion requires more than mere error; must be manifestly unreasonable or biased)