Teresa BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas MINNICK, Appellee.
648 A.2d 1192
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided Oct. 24, 1994.
Argued Sept. 20, 1993.
William L. Garvin, McKeesport, Stanley I. Selkowitz, Pleasant Hills, for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY and MONTEMURO, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY, Justice.
This case presents us with the opportunity to elucidate the scope of our current support guidelines contained in
Plaintiff resides with her husband, their child and the two children of the parties who are the subject of the current support order. Plaintiff has been employed as a waitress, and has a minimum wage earning capacity. She is currently off work after having surgery, but plans to return to work in the near future. Her present husband is not employed and no explanation of his status was presented at trial. It is axiomatic that he has a duty to contribute to the support of his wife and child. The total monthly budget of Plaintiff‘s household is $850.00 per month. The parties children constitute forty per cent of that household, and the sum of $340.00 per month reflects their reasonable needs. The Court has concluded that the reasonable needs of the children are about $400.00 per month.
Defendant earns $1,705.00 per month. He resides with his wife and her two children from a prior uniоn. Application of the support guidelines at $1,705.00 per month for defendant and $400.00 per month earning capacity for plaintiff suggests an Order of $513.00 per month.
This Court is aware that the guidelines are a starting point only. The Court has considered the expenses of both parties and their standard of living. It is clear that an Order of $400.00 per month meets all the basic needs of the childrеn, so that any contribution made by plaintiff will serve to enhance the standard of living of the children. The Court believes that an award in the guideline amount would
require this defendant to pay 60% of the expenses of Plaintiff‘s household, and thus subsidize plaintiff‘s current husband and their child. Considering all factors, this Court concluded that an Order of $400.00 per month for two children is fair and reasonable.
Apрellant appealed that decision to the Superior Court arguing that the trial court erred in awarding only $400.00 per month. A majority of the Superior Court, which heard the case en banc, reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In doing so, it found that while child support could be determined in numerous ways including, inter alia, the implementation of the support guidelines,
Thus we conclude the guidelines are not mandatory, but a starting point and by implication they cannot and do not supersede Melzer or deny the trial judge or hearing officer of the discretion to mold support Orders to meet the specific conditions of the parties.
Ball v. Minnick, 414 Pa.Super. 242, 256, 606 A.2d 1181, 1188 (1992). The Superior Court went on to state that “the traditional broad discretion in the trial court to dеtermine these matters remains unrestricted.” Id. at 262, 606 A.2d at 1191.
In so holding, the Superior Court misperceives the effect of the adoption of the guidelines and sets forth an incorrect statement of the law. First, with respect to the viability of the Melzer formula, the Superior Court ignores the clear and unambiguous language of the guidelines and corresponding rules. In Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), this Court set forth a formula for determining сhild support obligations based upon the reasonable needs of
The Superior Court also erred with respect to its conclusion that the trial judge or hearing officer‘s discretion remains inviolate irrespective of the adoption of the guidelines and accompanying rules.
In the instant case, the trial court deviated from the support guidelines by awarding monthly support of $400 rather than the guideline amount of $513. The sole issue before this Court is thus whether this case presents any basis for deviation.
The standard of appellate review of child support matters has not changed; a reviewing court must continue to apply an abuse of discretion standаrd. Costello v. LeNoir, 462 Pa. 36, 337 A.2d 866 (1975). A support order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court failed to consider properly the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions for Support,
As we said previously, deviations are governed by
The presumption is strong that the appropriate amount of support in each case is the amount as determined from the support guidelines. However, where the facts demonstrate the inаppropriateness of such an award, the trier of fact may deviate therefrom. This flexibility is not, however, intended to provide the trier of fact with unfettered discretion to, in each case, deviate from the recommended amount of support. Deviation will be permitted only where special needs and/or circumstances are present such as tо render an award in the amount of the guideline figure unjust or inappropriate.
In the instant matter, there was no evidence presented which established any special obligations or special circumstances justifying an award lower than the recommended guideline figure. The trial court‘s primary reason for deviating from the support guidelines was that the basic needs of the children could be met by a payment of less than the guideline amount. This is an impermissible basis for deviating from the guidelines.
Under established Pennsylvania case law, a parent has a duty to provide for the reasonable needs of his or her children to the best of his or her ability. This support obligation is not limited to the basic necessities of life. The children‘s reasonable needs include any expenditure that will reasonably further the child‘s welfare. Thus, unless a child enjoys an unusually high standard of living, the amount of the support obligation is based on a parent‘s ability to pay child support rather than the amount of money required to pay for those essential and nonessential items that would reasonably further the child‘s welfare. Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974); Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984).
The support guidelines were promulgated pursuant to the
[t]he guideline[s] shall be based upon the reasonable needs of the child or spouse seeking support and the ability of the obligor to provide support. In determining the reasonable needs of the child or spouse seeking support and the ability of the obligor to provide support, the guideline[s] shall place primary emphasis on the net incomes and earning capacities of the parties, with allowable deviations for unusual needs, extraordinary expenses and other factors, such as the parties’ assets, as warrant special attention.
The support guidelines are based on the principle embodied in the case law that the financial support of a child is a primary obligation of each parent. Since the child‘s needs receive priority, the support obligation consists of that portion of the parents’ incomes that is reasonably available for child support. This approaсh is also mandated by
As the Explanatory Comment to
Under
Since the trial court considered a factor that should not have been considered in entering the support award here, an abusе of discretion is readily apparent. Moreover, as there were no additional relevant factors which would support the trial court‘s award, application of the above principles dictates that an award in the amount of the appropriate guideline figure should have been awarded. Accordingly, for reasons other than those articulated by the learned Superior Court, the decision of the Superior Court reversing the trial court‘s award is affirmed. The case is remanded for the imposition of an award in the amount of the appropriate guideline figure.
FLAHERTY, J., files a dissenting opinion in which PAPADAKOS, J., joins.
MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation.
Justice, FLAHERTY, dissenting.
I emphatically dissent. The support guidelines provide a starting point to calculate what child support should be paid in a given case. There is, as the majority states, a presumption that the guidelines are correct, but this presumption can always be rebutted by a presentation of facts in the case which suggest that the amount paid should be more or less than the guideline.
The guiding principle is that the absent parent should pay his or her fair share of what is required to support the children.
In many cases, that need is uncertain and so the guidelines are relied upon. In this case, the need is defined. The custodial parent, the mother, tells us, through submission of her monthly budget, that she requires $850 per month to support her family of five. Because only two of these five people are the non-сustodial father‘s responsibility to support, the trial court properly multiplied the required $850 by 40%, the percentage of the mother‘s new family represented by the non-custodial father‘s children. This calculation yields the amount of $340. Out of an abundance of caution, the court then increased that amount to $400 per month.
This calculation and reasoning process wеre entirely proper. The whole purpose of the guidelines and of support hearings generally is to determine what amount of money is needed to support the children and to require both parents to pay their fair share of that need. This is exactly what the trial court did.
Furthermore, the trial court properly explained its deviation from the guideline. As
The majority “finds” that subsection (7) of
Generally, I agree with the majority‘s conclusion that “the purpose of the support guidelines is to make available for the children‘s reasonable needs the full amount of the guideline figures unless unusual obligations of the obligor limit his or her ability to pay the guidеline amount,” but this has no application where the parties tell us what amount is needed to support the children and that amount is different from the guideline.
The trial court is correct in reasoning that on the facts of this case, if the father were required to pay the guideline amount, he would, in effect, be subsidizing the mother‘s new husband and child in addition to supporting his own children. Such а result defies rationality.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this dissenting opinion.