N.L.H. v. T.M.J.
N.L.H. v. T.M.J. No. 1355 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Mother (T.M.J.) and Father (N.L.H.) share three children; an initial support order (2007) required Mother to pay $1,368.36/month.
- Father filed a petition to modify support (Sept. 2015); Conference Officer calculated incomes and recommended adjustments; mother ordered to pay support for two sons and arrears.
- Mother demanded a de novo hearing, sought offsets for majority custody, extraordinary medical expenses, larger student loan offset, and challenged Father’s income calculation; multiple continuances and discovery occurred.
- At the June 28, 2016 de novo hearing, the trial court found Mother had 66.7% average custodial time, calculated parents’ incomes (Mother higher), and ordered Mother to pay support to Father (tiered amounts, adjusted after eldest child’s emancipation).
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) rule 1910.16-4(d) precludes her being ordered to pay when she has majority custody, (2) Colonna was wrongly relied upon without adequate evidence of Father’s need, (3) the court improperly included income from her second job, and (4) the court effectively required her to work a second job.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a majority-custodial parent can be ordered to pay child support under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(d) | Mother: With majority custody (66.7%) she should be obligee, not payer | Father: Income disparity may justify deviation and ordering support to noncustodial parent | Court vacated and remanded: trial court abused discretion by deviating without Colonna-factor findings; evidentiary hearing required |
| Whether reliance on Colonna was proper absent evidence of Father’s ability to provide appropriate housing/amenities | Mother: Colonna should not apply because court lacked evidence on Father’s needs/assets | Father: Colonna allows support to noncustodial parent when incomes differ significantly | Held: Trial court improperly applied Colonna without making specific findings; remand for consideration of Colonna factors |
| Whether Mother’s second-job income may be included in calculating income/earning capacity | Mother: Second job was relinquished voluntarily to spend time with children; primary job already full-time (60 hrs/wk); court cannot force second job | Father: Mother’s historical earnings (including second job) reflect earning capacity and may be imputed | Held: Court failed to fully inquire into Mother’s earning capacity; remand for full inquiry and factual findings before imputing income |
| Whether trial court effectively required Mother to work beyond a reasonable full-time schedule | Mother: Ordering support based on second-job income forces unreasonable hours and penalizes parental choice | Father: Mother’s total earnings are relevant to children’s needs regardless of hours | Held: Court abused discretion by finding Mother’s motive “suspicious” without inquiry; remand to assess realistic earning capacity and reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonna v. Colonna, 581 Pa. 1, 855 A.2d 648 (Pa. 2004) (supreme court recognized that a primary custodial parent may be ordered to pay support to a partial-custody parent when incomes differ significantly and directed specific factors for deviation)
- Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court must conduct a full inquiry before determining an obligor's earning capacity and imputing income)
- Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2004) (earning capacity, not merely actual earnings, governs support obligations)
- Samii v. Samii, 847 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 2004) (fact-finder entitled to weigh evidence and assess credibility in support determinations)
- Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review in child support determinations; deference to trial court unless abuse of discretion)