Opinion by
Aрpellant contends that a support order for her five children is inadequate and that the lower court erred
The parties, now divorced, are the parents of six minor children, one of whom resides with the appelleefather. For the past four years, the appellee voluntarily paid child support, starting with payments of $200.00 a week, and gradually reducing said payments to $100.00 a week. Believing this amount to be inadequate, the appellant instituted support proceedings in the Cоurt of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.
The relevant facts evidencing the financial status of each of the parties may he summarized as follows:
Thе appellee is employed as an electrical mechanic at Philadelphia Electric Company, where he earns $357.36 in gross pay a week. Wage records were produced showing that his net pay after social security deductions and taxes was $265.10. The appellee testified that his own weekly expenses for himself, his second wife and two children (a child was horn from the second marriage) amounted to $206.22 a week. Evidence was produced showing that, in addition, the father maintained a life insurance policy with his children as beneficiaries and that the children were covered by a hospitalization plan.
The appellant is employed as a night-duty nurse, and has a net income of $135.00 a week. Appellant testified to weеkly expenses of $110.00 a week.
Appellee argued that the amount he was paying for the care and maintenance of Ms five minor children, i.e., $100.00 a week, was adequаte for their needs. Furthermore, he contended that his earnings were insufficient to place a greater financial burden upon Mm, as he had substantial expenses of Ms own for the support of the cMld of the first marriage, and Ms new family. In an effort to rebut the appellee’s stated expenses, aрpellant sought to ascertain the extent of his second wife’s earnings and her contribution to the household expenses of the family. TMs line of questioMng wаs disallowed by the lower court.
After hearing all the testimony, the lower court entered an award of $110.00 a week for the support of the five minor cMldren. In setting the award, the court determined that private school tuition not previously paid by the appellee wMle the parties were married and a mortgage on a new and more expensive house were not to be considered in determining the “needs” of the minor children. The lower court properly considered the earMngs of the appellant-mother as a source of income for the minor cMldren, as the duty to support minor сhildren now equally rests on both parents where they are financially able to bear the burden. Conway v. Dana,
The appellant contends that the earnings of a wife, who marries the father of children from a previous marriage, should be considered as a source of income to the father, and, as such, should be added to the father’s financial resources in computing the amount of a support order for his minor children. We do not agree.
At one time, it could be said that the duty of support rested solely upon the father. Even in more recent cases, our courts reсognized that while the earnings of the natural mother should be considered as an attendant circumstance, and therefore considered in calсulating the amount of the award, “the primary duty of support rest[ed] upon the father . . . .” Commonwealth ex rel. Bortz v. Norris,
The question, hоwever, of the responsibility of a third person, having neither parental ties nor custody responsibility over minor children, has not been squarely met in this Commonwealth.
In the instant case, the appellee testified that he had persоnal expenses of $206.22 a week. This amount reflected the budget from which the appellee supported himself, his wife, and two minor children, one of which was born of the first marriage. The appellant, in questioning the appellee as to the amount of income his second wife was contributing to defrаy the family expenses, sought to arrive at a true account of the father’s “ability to pay”. This, we believe, was a proper inquiry. A lower court is not bound by the testimony of a witness as to the financial resources available to him, or the amount of expenses he must incur in his “new” life. See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. Hoffman v. Hoffman,
For the above-stated reasons, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Notes
Tlie expenses may be broken down to include the following: $70.00 a week for fоod, $40.00 a week for mortgage payments, $30.00 a week in utilities. No figure was offered to represent clothing expenses or other expenses for thе children. The above expenses were, however, for the entire household, including the wife’s own maintenance.
Combined with the appellant’s net earnings of $140.00 a week, the additional amount of $110.00 a week representing the support order entered by the court below, provides the appеllant with $250.00 a week, an amount which the court believed to be adequate to support the appellant and her children. It is, of course, axiomаtic that an absolute decree of divorce ends husband’s obligation of support to his wife. Commonwealth ex rel. Jones v. Jones,
In Commonwealth ex rel. Yeats v. Yeats,