*3 JOYCE, Before OLSZEWSKI *, MONTEMURO JJ.
MONTEMURO, J. Jеfferson, I- appeals Louis Appellant, 15, 2001, reduc- February from Order per ing obligation $1150 month, him per crediting month to $946 child overpayment with $3578.70 directing Appellee, expenses, care hav- Kersey, to pay F. Mercedes $1000 change in ing notify the court of a failed to care regard to child circumstances by expenses, required Pa.R.C.P.1910.17. as We affirm. son,
¶ 2
of a
parents
are
parties
The
Malik,
They
of wedlock in 1994.1
born out
while
University
Pittsburgh
at
met
mas-
completing
holds a bachelor’s
degree. Appellant
ter’s
*
Superior
unaf-
assigned
support obligations
Justice
Court.
are
parents’
Retired
1. The
born out
fected
fact that
child was
5102(a).
§
Pa.C.S.A.
of wedlock. 23
degree
physiology,
upon
human
and mastеr’s
recommendation based
Officer’s
Support
Domestic Relations
degrees in health education and
Conference.
epidemiol-
ogy. Appellant
in the University
enrolled
conference,
5 At the
it was revealed
of Pittsburgh’s
pre-matricu-
medical school
Appellee
had
Malik from
withdrawn
program
lation
in the fall of
Center,
Learning
Kindercare
a private
Appellee
withdrew when
pregnant.
became
facility,
child care
in January
and for
point,
At that
a United
accepted
thereafter,
ten months
enrolled him in a
$36,000
government job paying
States
an-
program
Philadelphia
free child care
Thereafter,
nually.
earned
public
employed.
school where she wаs
$54,000 per year
working
However,
while
for Baird
notify
failed
Appellee
Appel-
Connecticut,
lant,
court,
year
per
County
or the Bucks
Do-
*4
Inc.,
Pfizer,
change.
mestic Relations Office of
In
City.
in New York
2000, Appellee
November of
removed Ma-
¶
2000,
In May
Appellant resigned
Philadelphia
placed
lik from the
school and
Pfizer
in
and enrolled full-time
thе
Elementary
him in
in
John Glenn
School
pre-matriculation program of the Universi-
Hill,
Jersey,
charged
Pine
New
which
$208
school,
ty of Connecticut’s
which
medical
per
Following
month for child care.
he
years
estimates will take five
to com-
conference, the Domestic Relations Officer
plete.
approximately
He works
30 hours
Appellant’s support
recommended that
ob-
per week as a clinical research coordinator
ligation
per
be reduced from
month
$1150
Windsor,
Corporation
in
Seirex
Con-
month,
1,
per
January
to
effective
$946
necticut for
per year, and current-
2001,
in
to reflect the reduction Malik’s
Hartford,
ly resides in
Ap-
Connecticut.
child care
in
expenses
change
and not the
pellant
pays
per
support
also
month
$760
Appellant’s income. The
also rec-
Officer
relationship. Ap-
for a child from another
jurisdiction
ommended that
be transferred
Hill,
pellee, who resides in Pine
New Jer-
Jersey,
to
Appellee
New
where
and Malik
Malik,
sey with
is a
teacher
public school
reside,
party
bеcause neither
resides in
in Philadelphia.
support
At the time the
County.
Bucks
filed,
action was
and Malik resid-
Appellee
¶
hearing,
the trial court ac-
After
Bristol,
County, Pennsylvania.
ed in
Bucks
cepted the Officer’s recommendations and
15, 2001, Order,
February
entered the
¶4
22, 1999,
On
November
Bucks
Appellant’s support
which lowered
obli-
County
Pleas entered a
Court
Common
gation,
overpayment
for
Appellant
credited
support
Appellant
pay
to
requiring
order
expenses during
of child care
the ten
month,
per
which included
$1150
$357.87
Philadelphia
pub-
months Malik was
as a proportionate share of Malik’s child
program,
Appellee
lic school
and ordered
6, 2000,
care expenses. On October
pay
having
notify
to
for
failed to
$1000
County
Bucks
Domestic Relations Office
of the
in circumstances re-
Court
petition
contempt against Appel-
filed a
garding
care.
un-
Appellant
Malik’s child
lant
to
with the
failing
comply
Order.
successfully moved for reconsideration and
later, Appellant petitioned
One week
now appeals.
modification because his income had de-
¶
orders,
creased when he left Pfizer and enrolled
reviewing
7 In
support
whether,
program.
the medical school
On October
considering
we are
to
limited
2000,
evidence,
delayed any
the trial court
en-
convincing
based on clear and
Sim
contempt petition
forcement action on the
the trial court
its discretion.
abused
Simmons,
pending receipt of a Domestic Relations mons v.
723 A.2d
omitted).
(citations
age,
party’s
consider the
ing capacity
“An
must
(Pa.Super.1998)
health,
education,
experi-
proof
training,
of more
work
requires
abuse of discretion
error
judgment,
ence,
than a mere
rather
care re-
history, and child
earnings
misappliеd
that the law
or
sponsibilities. Id.
overridden,
judgment
or that the
was man-
seeks to
Appellant
Because
bias,
ifestly
or
on
ill
unreasonable
based
obligation
on
modify
based
support
his
will,
Id.
prejudice,
partiality.”
income
he enrolled
reduction in his
trial
contends
school,
the Grimes
apply
we
medical
court erred when it failed
consider his
agree
the first
we
Regarding
prong,
test.
history
prior
income
earnings
and actual
did not
with the trial court
determining
support obligations.
his
This
in an at
voluntarily reduce
income
fails.
argument
As
obligation.
tempt
to avoid his
9 Child
shared re
argues
prong, Appellant
requiring
parents
con
sponsibility
both
job miti
obtaining
part-time
that his
to the
their
tribute
children
loss.
trial court
gates
incоme
The
accordance
their relative incomes and
however,
found,
failed to
Holland,
ability
pay.
Depp
prong
he failed
*5
meet the second
because
(1994)
209,
204, 208
Pa.Super.
636 A.2d
a
why
acceptance
to
the
of
demonstrate
DeWalt,
v.
(citing
Pa.Super.
DeWalt
365
(Trial
job
necessary.
lower
paying
(1987)).
280,
A.2d 508
party
529
“Where a
9).
Op.
agree. Aрpellant’s
Ct.
at
We
voluntarily
job,
paying
assumes a lower
$32,000
$70,000
a
income
to
dropped
generally
there
will be no effect on the
in medical
year
he chose to enroll
obligation.”
support
Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-
Grimes,
was no evi
school. As
there
2(d)(1). It is well
that “to
a
modify
settled
he at
presented
Appellant
dence
support obligation
upon
in
basеd
reduced
job
comparable
a
tempted to find
with a
come, petitioner
a
must first
establish
finding
job
as to
a
salary
why
voluntary
employment
the
change
which
salary
possible.
a comparable
was not
resulted in a
income
reduction of
was not Grimes,
at 243.
supra
avoiding
made for the
purpose
a child
argues
that Grimes
support obligаtion
secondly,
and
that a
not involve
distinguishable
is
because it did
in support
reduction
warranted
on
is
based
furthering We
parent’s
a
education.
any
petitioner’s
mitigate
efforts to
income
has
agree
yet applied
that no case
Grimes,
loss.” Grimes v.
408 Pa.Super.
seeking a
parent
when a
is
(1991).
Grimes test
240,
158, 596 A.2d
Effectively,
has
support
because he or she
reduction
“must
present
as to
chosen
further his or her education.
to
why he or she
left
voluntarily
prior
However,
that,
request
in a
we conclude
why
and
to
employment
accep
also as
reduction,
support
voluntary
choice
job
paying
tance of a lower
was neces
forego
in order to
employment
to
current
willfully
sary.”
party
Id. Where a
fails to
employment
an
further one’s education is
appropriate employment, his or her
obtain
be treated no differ
decision that should
equal
income will be considered to be
jobs and
ently
change
a
than
decision
earning capacity.
his or her
Pa.R.C.P.
1910.16-2(d)(4).
salary.2 The Grimes Court stressed
A
of earn-
determination
legiti-
rеcognized
parent’s
a
"[c]ourts have
2.
cites Commonwealth ex rel.
390,
Pa.Super.
forego
present em-
McQuiddy McQuiddy,
a lucrative
v.
mate desire
establishing
(1976)
hope
proposition
ployment
situation
358 A.2d
importance
considering
“arrogate
the children’s
unto himself the conditions
in any employment
needs
decision:
under
support
which he will
the child.”
[Appellant’s]
We liken
duty
to Id.; see
Cragle
also Commonwealth ex rel.
i.e.,
any other
obligation,
fixed
mort-
Cragle,
Pa.Super.
v.
419 A.2d
rent,
gage,
payment,
car
which one must
(1980).
1179, 1181
being
upon
consider
able to meet
¶ 12
with the
agree
We
trial court that
change in employment
salary.
We
Appellant’s
while
ambition to obtain a
believe this consideration should be as
degree
medical
certainly
“laudable and
important
a parent
[separated]
of a
commendable,” it was nonetheless volun-
family as it would be to a parent of an
tary
“subordinated the immediate fi-
intact family
when a
of employ-
nancial needs of his children to his career
ment is contemplated.
(Trial
10).
aspirations.”
Op.
Aрpel-
Ct.
at
Grimes,
Moreover,
supra at 243.
case law
lant’s
pursue
degree
decision to
medical
pre-dating
supports
Grimes
the same
at
particularly interesting
time is
treatment for a
to pursue
decision
an edu-
admittedly
when he
did not believe that
change employ-
cation and a decision to
pursuing the same
at
degree was advisable
in a request
ment
reduction.
(N.T.,
the time Malik was conceived.
In Snively
Snively,
Pa.Super.
7).
2/15/01,
above,
As discussed
Appel-
(1965),
the that he degrees two degree Appellant’s master’s assertion field, jobs at expenditure and had worked three for this responsible health is not that field. The court settled on Pennsyl within contrary consent is without his salary Pfiz Appellant’s per year at Pro Pennsylvania vania Rule of Civil law. earning capacity. 1910.16-6(a) er indicative of his as provides: cedure no abuse of We find discretion. by paid care expenses Reasonable child ¶ next contends that the parent, necessary if the custodial trial erred it excluded as irrel- court or ed- employment appropriate maintain alleged evidencе of Appellee’s evant willful income, the are pursuit ucation contempt custody order entered These responsibility parents. of both Pleas Philadelphia the Common Court. expenses shall be allocated between disagree. We in- to their net parties proportion to his obligor’s comes share added Admission or exclusion of her support obligation. or basic evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hutchison v. Luddy, Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-6(a). im- also 826, 838 (Pa.Super.2000) (quoting A.2d Malik from plies Appellee’s removal of Fuel, Bros., Media Turney Inc. v. Toll some- Philadelphia public school was 836, 839 (Pa.Super.1999)). may A.2d We the trial how We find that improper. if only clearly trial court reverse “This ably argument: сourt addressed abused its'discretion or committed an er strictly a issue and allegation custody ror of law. Id. “To constitute reversible case, .... In this not an issue error, an must evidentiary ruling only not County of Common Philadelphia Court erroneous, be also harmful [must] [be] jurisdiction parties’ Pleas retains over prejudicial complaining party.” (Trial 12-13). custody dispute.” Op. Ct. “any Id. Evidence is relevant if it has it, trial record before Based on the to make tendency any the existence fact *7 obli- Appellant’s support court lowered consequence that is of to the determination in the reduction the cost gation to reflect action more or less probable proba child care. find no abuse of Malik’s We it ble than would be without the evidence.” discretion. Pa.R.E. 401. Irrelevant is not Pa.R.E. 402. The trial admissible. court ¶ Finally, 18 contends previous properly Appellee’s alleged found trial court erred when it transferred custody contempt of another court’s order Jersey. to New We dis- support matter to the issues support irrelevant that were agree. Accordingly, before the court. we find no abuse of discretion. cur parties none of the 19 As Commonwealth, Next, no rently within the Appellant argues 16 reside “continuing, ex state has erred it ordered him to tribunal in this trial court or support over the expenses jurisdiction” care Malik clusive pay child at John 7205(a)(1). § Accord in der. Pa.C.S.A. Elementary Jersey New even 23 Glenn as an properly court served ingly, consult him re- the trial though Appellee did not of the provider tribunal” its transfer “initiating in child care garding Jersey, Appellee part-time matter New where and employment. ap- Somehow § Malik reside. 28 Pa.C.S.A. 7203. pellant manages to be a full-time medical part student and work time aas clinical ¶ 20 Ordеr affirmed. po- research coordinator. As the research OLSZEWSKI, pays per year, sition it Dissenting appears J. files a appellant job has found Opinion. compa- which is experience. previous rable to his In his OLSZEWSKI, J., Dissenting. time, position, working appellant full ¶ 1 expression majority While the of the $70,000per year. earned view provides persuasive analysis ¶ Appellant why also demonstrated rationale, sound I am obliged differ and acceptance lower-paying position of this respectfully dissent. necessary. was Appellant presented evi- ¶ 2 Although I agree majority with the dence of his full-time return to medical that Grimes is controlling, I disagree must school. It is reasonable to infеr from that as to the majority’s application of that evidence that it would impossible be standard to the facts of this case. Under him to continue to work full time. Grimes, appellant must first establish that the voluntary change ¶ 6 Although while enrolled in medical in employment which in reduc- resulted appellant provide school will be unable to tion of income was not made for the child, support upon gradua- as much to his purpose avoiding a child obli- improve tion his financial situation will gation secondly, that a reduction greatly. only appellant Not will benefit support is warranted on petition- based coming from the sacrifices made effort mitigate any er’s income loss. years, reaр but his child will also what effect, In petitioner present must evi- appellant sows. Just as an increase in why dence as voluntarily he or she higher-pay- is warranted when a prior employment left the and also as to ing position accepted, is a reduction of why the acceptance paying of the lower support may also be wаrranted when a job necessary. lower-paying position accepted. is Since Grimes, Grimes v. appellant voluntarily did not Pa.Super. reduce his (1991). income to avoid support obligations A.2d steps mitigate has taken the income ¶ Although appellant cannot avoid his loss, he is entitled to a reduction in his support obligation simply becausе he is support payments graduation until student, now a full-time he is entitled to a doing medical school. reduction in if payments penalized best he can and should not be change in circumstances warrants such a *8 attempting to further his education. found, reduction. The I majority agree, appellant did not choose to sup-
return to medical school to avoid his
port obligations, but rather to better his
station in life. majority, Unlike the how-
ever, I believe has met appellant also of the Grimes test. prong
¶ Appellant attempted has to mitigate
the income loss associated his return through
to medical school the acceptance