*1
Karen MILNE and David IV.
Appeal of Karen MILNE. Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Dec. 1987. Filed March *2 Munafo, Rachel Philadelphia, appellant.
Norton Freedman, A. Lansdale, Milne, for Caleb appellee. Rasner, David S. Philadelphia, Milne, for David appellee. CIRILLO, CAVANAUGH, Judge, Before President BROSKY, ROWLEY, McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI, MONTEMURO, POPOVICH, JOHNSON, JJ. CIRILLO, BY Judge:
OPINION President Milne appeals Karen from a order entered Montgomery County requiring Court of Common Pleas of $3,250 per year her contribute sum toward the son, her college expenses estranged Caleb Milne. We and vacate in part part. affirm husband, separated appellee Karen Milne from her David Milne, IV, December, twenty-two year 1984 after a marriage.1 During marriage, couple their had two child, separation, younger children. At time of the Milne, first, in high Caleb was a senior school. At Caleb continued to reside the marital home with his mother. *3 However, and, in estranged Caleb became from his mother 1985, in voluntarily March of he moved with his father. prior
Karen Milne testified that he departure, Caleb’s engaged arguments erupted several with her which into occasion, attacks on her. in his physical spit On one Caleb once, pushed mother’s face. More than he her so that she twice, fell he her. down and at least struck house, he all commu- After Caleb left his mother’s ceased her. In the fall of he entered the nication with He his University Virginia. completed of Richmond there, attaining grade point average. freshmen a 3.0 year All of his freshmen expenses during year paid Caleb’s were father, time he during his whom Caleb lived with university. not in residence at the was Milne, IV, In of his freshmen David filed February year, of his son. This petition special relief on behalf permitting issue an order petition requested the court to personal his to his mother’s house to obtain Caleb access petition, appeared In Caleb belongings. against court to his mother. testify pending 1. An action for divorce was at the time of the hearing. During following the summer Caleb’s freshmen m year college, Caleb was admitted to College Occidental Califor- nia for the of his completion undergraduate studies. When him, this college admitted complaint filed a in child support against his mother and father to secure financial meeting assistance in his anticipated college expenses at Occidental He College. specifically alleged that his mother neglected had her duty to sufficiently support him. An expedited hearing on the support complaint was held 4, 1986, on September at which the Honorable William T. Nicholas heard testimony parents. Caleb and his Shоrtly thereafter, Judge Nicholas entered an directing order David Milne, IV to pay tuition, room, board, son’s entire transportation to and from In order, California. court also concluded that Karen Milne’s estrangement from her son was insufficient to excuse her duty to contribute to her son’s college education and directed her to reimburse Milne, $3,250 David IV the sum of toward Caleb’s education expenses. Following entry order, of the court’s Karen Milne filed appeal to this court.
While Ms.
appeal
Milne’s
was originally decided
aby
panel
court,
of this
granted
we
her petition for reargument
because of the importance of the following issue of first
impression: does an adult child’s willful estrangement from
his or her
parent’s
excuse that
duty to contribute to
the child’s college education.2 We conclude that estrange
DeWalt,
2. This issue was addressed in
Pa.Super.
dicta in DeWalt v.
(1987),
subject
529 A.2d
Judge
and was the
of President
*4
concurring
Chesonis,
opinion
Cirillo's
Pa.Super.
Chesonis v.
372
113,
(1988),
181
determining
a consideration in
whether
ment should be
case,
In
for an adult child.3
support
educational
award
mother
total
of his
find that Caleb’s
abandonment
we
college
of the
to contribute
to Caleb’s
duty
relieves her
portion
of the trial
Consequently, we vacate
expenses.
Karen Milne to contribute
requiring
court’s order
son,
expenses of her
Caleb.
college
among
“enlightened”
juris
counted
Pennsylvania
fault.
permit
Pennsylvania
dictions that
divorce without
concerning
itself with
enlightened
can also be considered
It is one of at
the futures of the children of those divorces.
that,
circumstances,
under some
jurisdictions
least nineteen
college
to the
require
parents
those divorced
contribute
offspring beyond
age
eighteen.
educations of their
To Their Adult Chil
Support Obligations
Parents’
Moore,
dren,
(1985) (hereinafter Moore);
183, 184
19 Akron L.Rev.
College Education —A
Postminority Support for
Horan,
in Divorce
Obligation
Proceedings?
Legally Enforceable
Horan).
589,
(1987) (hereinafter
This is a
Fam.L.Q.
596
of the common law
departure
application
from the historical
statutes.
interpretation
support
provide
a child and
duty
support
At common law the
of life carried with it the
him or her with the necessities
lifestyle
approve;
he does not
decided on
education of son whose
Ill.App.3d
statutory grounds); Hight Hight,
N.E.2d 679
v.
(less
daugh
(1972)
satisfactory relationship between father and
than
origin;
argument
to be of mutual
father’s
that his contribu
ter found
penalty
daughter
not consult him about
tion is a
and that
did
discretion).
in which
make award abuse of
Those few cases
did not
dispositive
squarely
have been
will be
issue has been
addressed or
opinion.
later in this
discussed
only
qualified duty
opinion speaks
of divorced
While this
support
college,
commensurate
parents
an adult child in
there is a
parents
who
duty
support
part
of adult children
on the
of divorced
pursuit
type
accepted
or career
pursuing
vocational
are
some
which,
inability
fully self-sup-
college,
temporary
entails a
be
like
(1986)
Pa.Super.
porting.
Kopp
Turley,
right reciprocal parents of association and was had Note, the right Support to child’s services. Obligations of Secondary Non-Custodial Parent Private and the for Education: Toward a College Equitable Uniform (1982) (hereinafter Resolution, 16 U.L.Rev. 755 Suffolk n. 5 and cases cited there Support Obligations), Parental in; Oh, Dad, Dad, 44 Temple Post Poor Majority Support: (hereinafter L.Q. 319, (1971) 325 Post Majority Support). to a minor child Today, duty regard absolute with the the child. depend and does not on access of to 462, 472, 991, 996 505 Pa. 480 A.2d Witsberger, Melzer v. (1984). extension of this common duty It is the law most the courts of this Commonwealth support which post-minority sup their to award ground jurisdiction often do not restrict the term “child” port. support Our statutes minors, leaving way support clear to award thereby age children beyond majorit the welfare of protect Horan, supra at y.4 seeking support beyond reason for
The most common
As
said in
eighteen
postsecondary
education.
we
age
511,
(1981):
Verna,
Pa.Super.
288
Id.,
at
Our case
begun
law reveals
we have
to look
already
at factors оutside the narrow two factor test when consider-
See Sutliff
ing support
for educational expenses.
awards
393, 403,
Sutliff,
(1987)
515 Pa.
528 A.2d
(“earnings
college age
children may be considered ...
[as
may]
placed
funds
trust for the
benefit
a child or for
Chesonis,
Chesonis v.
education”);
(inde-
supra
pendent
college age
considered);
means of a
child may be
Francis,
Francis v.
(1986)
Pa.Super.
We have also been faced with cases
ask collateral
which
For
is there to
questions.
example,
аge beyond
be an
which
an adult child cannot benefit from such an award? On first
blush,
two-pronged
test set forth above would lead one
However, DeWalt
age
to believe there was no
limit.
this
such
just
question.
court was called
to address
a
We
circumstances,
that,
held
extraordinary
absent
after a child’s
aid
responsible
held
could not be
at
Pa.Super.
DeWalt, supra
birthday.
twenty-third
upon
called
also been
289-91,
at 513-14. We have
539 A.2d
made to
can be
a non-custodial
decide whether
Brown, 327
Brown v.
school. See
graduate
contribute
(1984) (trial
misapplied
court
51,
Perhaps, single compelling piece most of evidence in this case is Ms. Milne’s testimony that her son “spat my face and shoved me so that I fell over. He never spat but once. He did push me more than once. He struck me at least twice.” That any father condone, would let alone encourage, a son who has so abused his mother in taking legal against action her shocks the sensibilities of this writer. The dissent would add insult to injury by finding that Caleb entitled to exact funds for college from his mother’s already strained resources. Such compounding tragedy this family cannot be countenanced. To do so would be to relieve Caleb of any responsibility for his actions, adult, which were taken as an however embittered. time, Neither passage so panacea favored as a by the dissent, nor himself Caleb have done anything mitigate the harm of his actions.
By refusing to perfunctorily apply two-pronged test case, in this we are announcing that we are not content to focus on the pragmatic aspects of the case—the wiseness of (Caleb’s the investment aptitude work) to do college and the (Karen feasibility making it Milne’s ability pay) to —to the exclusion of familial aspects so undeniably central to concerns policy giving rise to our intervention in this area. We refuse to champion importance of post-sec- ondary education over that of adult responsibility. reason,
Courts are and for traditionally, good reluctant to cross the threshold of the family dwelling, for so far as they threshold, venture beyond they have intruded. This caution undoubtedly underlies the dissent’s avoidance the issues this case. The dissent is loathe to become it involved what characterizes an adversarial proceeding to determine fault between and child. The view that courts should not interefere is a family relationships fine approach, it, unless by taking greater the court allows evil than that which it attempts prevent. of the court is objective extending protection its parents
to adult children of divorced is to ensure that they
187
of
that
is the
deprived
key
not
are
unjustly
word—
—-and
had, had their
otherwise
have
would
they
opportunities
of the courts
in this endeav-
The role
not divorced.6
parents
as
substituting its judgment,
nearly
as
of
one
or should be
should not be
of the
But this
for that
parents.
possible,
In
essence,
the court
arbitrarily.
or
mechanically
done
For that
making
such decisions.
parentis
stands
loco
ourselves
shoes of each
put
must
reason,
we
us. Since each
presents
case
before
ease comes
whose
circumstances,
upon
it is incumbent
individuals
unique
interests
the best
to fashion
each decision with
judiciary
our
in mind.7
family
of the whole
there
is mutual discussion
family,
In an intact
of the choice.8
of school affordability
desired choice
control over the adult
virtue
some
Parents exercise
routinely
Yet we
support.9
of financial
provision
of their
for children
support
obligation
educational
impose the
input
making
any
allowance
parents without
divorced
caught
get
in the cross-fire
tendency
for children
6. The unfortunate
succinctly
parents
expressed
in Childers
was
divorced
between their
(1978):
Childers,
P.2d 201
Wash.2d
very
Parents,
often
custody of their children
deprived of the
when
instinct would
what their natural
for such children
refuse to do
ordinarily prompt
to do.
them
at
Of awarding support. in educational trangement as a factor into a new of this factor will not take the court The addition already already are there. We family disputes. We area of fault in the context concept deal routinely with that actions; eliminated legislature has not divorce agree with option. a no-fault We adopting consideration es that the consideration of the rationale appellant from the issues which detract two trangement would logically is inconsistent to be relevant court has determined relating to other issues involv statutory and case law is of entitlement For the issue example, ing support. Morley, Morley spousal support, for defense to an action (1981), is a 524 and misconduct Pa.Super. A.2d P.S. determining alimony, be considered factor court not detracted 501(b)(14). alimony The § its pay by party’s ability into the inquiry its from misconduct issues. the entitlement and сonsideration of being called on to exercise our discretion Similarly, support, educational determining postminority for awards each factors which demand evaluation use already we situation, case by case. inquiry needed to determine estrangement will more be no cumbersome.
In giving consideration estrangement, there are objective factors which can be identified to make the deter mination of estrangement without going further into a concept of fault than do we now a divorce context. It will be relatively easy painless for courts to ascertain whether the parent and have been in contact since the child’s eighteenth birthday and, so, if get some feel the nature and quality of their relationship. It will also be simple inquire courts to such into a child’s intentions regard and desires with to his or her relationship with that parent in the future and to find out whether that has been consulted at all short, about the college choice—in whether the parent being asked for support is more than just another source of financial aid. It will be no more difficult for courts to refuse to consider factors are which appropriate not to a current example, determination. For we will not certainly consider pre-majority attitudes and behavior, as all recognize maturity we that the and restraint can expected which of adults appropriately applied to evaluate children. But to extend this parental amnesty beyond age majority would be irresponsible. By college age, children divorced parents must be begin expected to to come to terms with the their reality of *12 family’s begin situation. must They to their realize that attitudes and actions are their responsibilities. individual resentments, Whatever their biases and one un- while can derstand they got how that way, when become they adults no longer it is to appropriate them stay way allow to that without consequence. parent’s One main duties raising a child to teach him responsibili- that must take ty his actions. The time-honored inway which this is accomplished is to make certain that the child deals with natural consequences that follow from whatever course action was chosen. teaching Consider the lesson if we are we allow to powers adult children use the of the to state force a they whom rejected have abused and to message kind of This education. college to their contribute for the one which beneficial considered hardly can children. of those welfare role parental portion
If are to assume that we to assist with whether or not deciding concerned with our children, not shirk we must expenses of adult college to the entitlement to determine their corresponding duty most that in say dare they for which ask. And we help and families, rejected who had abused the fact that a child home be considered and his her would abandoned maxim legal It making oft-quoted a decision. is an such he who comes equity: do equity, that he who seeks must trial Even the come with clean hands. equity, into must “standing” to ask doubts about Caleb’s judge voiced from his mother: if, fact, a walks boy basically me It strikes just college goes through year from his mother and away her, some does ask from because anything there may case feel development domestic parents’ he be heard advantage gained ... Can is some to be point, year going after a say now at this her, aid, okay, wanting nothing do with her without money, I mom? now want and willful Milne’s abusive behavior
We submit that Caleb to refuse for this court estrangement is sufficient reason to his his decision not to contribute alter mother’s expenses. similar under jurisdictions have denied
Several Ark. 532 S.W.2d In Riegler, facts. Riegler reached (1976), estrangement, begun before the child was, trial, year’s of nine the time majority age, to education The father’s refusal to contribute duration. helped he had daughter, though his even youngest costs of “told sisters, daughter had upheld older was where her thing he had only that the go him to to hell declared spend money her the give her education was do with father 736. The 532 S.W.2d at as she chose.” Id. at to have a that, daughters all of his while he wanted argued *13 education, college “expected he them to treat him with the respect due a father and to counsel him about their if training” he towas for it. Id. pay He indicated that, if she her changed attitude and asked for his help, willing would be more than it. provide Id. at S.W.2d at 738.
In
Prestwood,
Hambrick
(Miss.1980),
the circumstances of this is not absolute. It dependent, only on the child’s aptitude qualifica- tions college, on but whether the child’s behavior toward, relationship with the [parent], makes the child worthy of the additional effort and financial burden be placed will or Sending children to [him her]. expensive and can cause much sacrifice on the part parents. It demanded, cannot ordinarily be but must be earned children through respect for their parents, love, affection and appreciation parental ef- instance____ forts, none of which are present in this Under the case, unfortunate circumstances of this we are opinion that the [parent] should be of any relieved obligations further educate this nineteen year-old young lady____
We continue to adhere the holding [Mississippi’s seminal case in this area which would award in case], the instant but this case demonstrates that no rule is or completely law should be inflexible. The facts of exceptional some cases require treatment and this is one of those. have simply rights We tried to balance the *14 nineteеn a those of or parent with obligations [his her] daughter. year-old 115 Misc.2d Schnepf In
Id. at 477-78.
Cohen
admitted-
(1982),
eighteen year-old
son had
N.Y.S.2d
found to have
and was
parent
his noncustodial
ly abandoned
parent.
from that
independence
asserted his
voluntarily
denied. The court held:
Support was
support
to
a
parental obligation
While it is true that the
because the child is
simply
child does not terminate
right to
is
true that a child’s
parent,
the
it
also
odds with
expect
A
a
a
right
has
to
parent
is not unlimited.
child.
obedience from his
respect
minimum of
and
(citations omitted).
880-81, 454
at 787
Id. at
N.Y.S.2d
framed
supreme
In
Arkansas
court
supra,
the
Riegler,
in
case at bar ...
question
in
“The
the
way:
the issue
this
her
obligated
is
assist
appellant morally
is
whether
is
the
attending college,
question
but
financially while
under the evidence
obligated
to do so
legally
is
whether
at 738
The dissent would two- satisfy the current necessary that which beyond distaste, a expresses general position test. This pronged dealing necessity in the the judiciary, most shared settling business of unpleasant often messy band-aids legal applying judicial disputes family understanda- There is an bonds. place family of former role judicial expand hesitance corresponding ble reluctance, however, become can This family disputes. venture when, the courts must jobs, do our untenable all, is, It after equity. do criteria beyond established we act these equity jurisdiction in an exercise our where, or for one reason see are ones cases we cases. The contributing. It another, a is not amenable equities and to balance the why find out us to incumbent on test, we overrule bright-line of a before, on basis There are mother father. by the child’s made decision who, asked, not too many parents help when will not a child with his or her education. This case illustrates why, when declines, divorced need look we beyond two- pronged test. child,
If any bar, of us had in the as case at who spat floor, us or pushed us to the we would not complacently adults, that attitude. While we may, be more aware of the young, reasons for hot tempers and the cooling time, and wisdom that comes with and therefore more view, to take the long able we would not like our *15 choice about how to handle such an adult child and whether or not give him or her for aid college be dictated to us by course, the courts. Of unless we parents, were divorced the manner in which we made those decisions would be entirely to us and up purview outside the of the courts. If that, we felt so long as an adult estrangement child’s willful continued, he or she would receive no monetary support us, from that decision would unappealable. be Karen Milne however, feels way; that her is open question choice because she is divorced. we,
Because in our as judicial role caretaker her family, decision, are called to second-guess her we must careful that be we are fair. It is providing the interest of her son no than he with less would have if gotten divorce had not happened that we act at all. Surely, if we less, ensure that he no gets must we be careful also that he no more. gets The value of a college education must be balanced family traditional values that have been central that long college unit before a education was possible desirable or even for most families. To reward the case, or, least, in this behavior exhibited at the very to allow son it, to avoid for responsibility counterproductive. A educаtion will not correct this young man’s atti- mother, tude his nor do put toward we much faith in the approach “someday light he see will and mend the fences” for approach. time action which would take into consideration his egregious was dictated by behavior for We support. he filed this action Caleb himself when it pass. must not let needs, we discussing Caleb Milne and
When we are He must be held accountable talking about adult are Ms regard from help With to financial for Ms own actions. choosing he on his own. mother, separate, to be stands by his mother—and way has chosen to act that toward Since he Milne’s that Karen obli- he mends fences—-we hold until suspended. education is gation to to his contribute case under the facts particularly just This result is funding is one that was since the school seeks which parties separated, expensive as too before rejected lifestyle school the son the preserves because that His could not said to live clearly his father. mother only is not such result. prejudiced at the same level. Caleb schooling and the for Ms to date paying His father has been so ability he had the to continue do trial court found that hardship. undue without “bright line” test to which we have beyond the
By going adhered, jurisdic ranks with other previously joining we are approach more to these awards.12 tions that take a holistic example is one neighboring Jersey state New Our account, alia, into such It takes inter jurisdiction. parent-child relationship deciding whether or *16 support: postminority award circumstances, parent- the of appropriate privilege
[I]n
necessary
it
assure
edu-
duty
hood carries
the
In
for contri-
evaluating
for children....
claim
cation
education, courts should
higher
the cost of
bution toward
Horan,
general
jurisdictions,
supra.
see
12. For a
discussion
these
reports:
That author
postminority
perhaps
persuasive
Finally,
most
[in
and
awards],
postminority support
where
is
is the fact
that
in states
appropriateness
permitted,
done
is a factual determination of
there
case-by-case
compelled
support;
Courts are not
to award
on a
basis.
given
In
they
merely
do so.
states where such
are
the discretion to
typically
permitted,
evolved a list of
the caselaw has
prerequisite
the
the
as a
factors
to be considered
court
relationship
paying
including]
to the
...
the child’s
award....
Id.
consider all relеvant
including (1)
factors
whether
the
parent, if
living
still
child,
with the
would have contribut-
ed
the
requested
toward
costs
the
higher education; (2)
the effect of
background,
the
values
goals
and
of the
parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the
higher education; (3)
child for
the amount of the contribu-
sought
tion
by the child
the
education;
cost of higher
(4) the
of the
ability
cost;
pay
(5)
the
relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of
or
school
child;
course
study sought by
(6)
the
the
(7)
financial resources of
parents;
both
the commitment
aptitude
of the child for
requested education;
the
(8)
child,
the financial resources of the
including assets
individually
owned
or
held
custodianship
trust;
(9)
or
ability
the
of the child to earn income
the
during
school
vacation;
year
(10)
or
the
availability
financial aid in
the
loans;
form of
the child’s
grants
(11)
or
relationship
parent,
to the paying
including mutual
goals
shared
as well
responsiveness
affection
parental
advice and guidance; (12)
the relationship
requested
education
to any prior training and to
long-range goals
overall
of the child.
Newburgh
529,
Arrigo,
543-45,
N.J.
443 A.2d
(1982)
1038-39
(emphasis added). See also Hardisty v.
Hardisty,
(1981) (where
Conn.
[B]y evaluating the most salient factors comprising circumstances, family’s total the court attempted iden- tify approach parties which the themselves would have taken to educate their child had the marriage not comprehensive, been terminated. Such a standardized analysis the particular circumstances of family crucial to an equitable determination of whether a duty *17 allowed, exists... The must Courts and indeed re- quired, all to consider factors exercising relevant before their discretion to order college, educational child, to hardship the including: emancipation the child, intangible to the and other [parent], the benefit the parties. the peculiar to factors supra, at 767-68. Support Obligations, Parental the financial means of court took into account the Hardisty to- parent’s the non-custodial attitude parent, non-custodial education, child’s secondary of private ward the value needs, the special education ability, academic ambition and needs, fulfill whether schools to those public adequacy schools, family private a of attendance history there was school that child would have attended that the likelihood divorce, implied part agreement any absent the school, private to send the the non-custodial right parent to make educational and the of the custodial choices. Id. those mentioned above are often
While factors such as now, our courts now make it informally by considered we estrangement of the circumstances to be clear that one cases. deciding postminority support considered formally such an complete It be a defense to necessarily should not action, award, factor, a dispositive an nor even but barring weighed equitable question it balance. The should be concerns, is not we choose to address certain whether would rather whether those concerns need be addressed but result, one into account the just order to reach a that takes child, good society and the continued welfare of A family. parents. includes family existence adult, parent, repudiates If an a child have allowed to dictate what еffect this will parent must be college for that expenses on his or her contribution such a child with the means provide child.13 We will (Utah 1978), Ferguson, Ferguson P.2d 1274 continued In eighteen-year was old who wished attend an up discretionary pursuant made such orders a statute that denied twenty-one. age The court said: willing Ordinarily be more than to aid and assist will education; however, securing one should child in adult order, except perhaps in some compelled do so court not be If he does not have the interests unusual circumstance ... *18 inflicting another blow to a yet parent who has already deeply painful suffered the of his rejection or her child. divorcing parents Just as run the risk alienating of their children, adult children who abandon a willfully parent must deemed have run risk be that such a may not willing be pursuits. underwrite their educational Such children, when faced with the answer “no” to their re- quests, decide to seek the may elsewhere; funds some may not, decide that the time for ripe is reconciliation. They will event, allowed any be to enlist the aid of the court in compelling their educational efforts unless and until demonstrate they a minimum amount of respect and consideration for that parent.
In the case at bar we have more than estrangement, Milne, we have total abandonment. having Caleb voluntar ily forcefully and apron strings, severed the is clearly emancipated from his mother.14 He under no disability. He free of her household he as would be if he married services, joined the armed common bases for a finding of emancipation.15 part-time His earnings prove that he is capable of himself. supporting Our seminal case in this area, Sommerville, Commonwealth ex rel. Ulmer v. su pra, germane point: makes [BJeyond necessities, the barest a father should be re- quired sacrifice personal comfort in order to provide of young necessities a child too to support himself. exacting requirement same should not be demanded provide a father to a college education for a child able to support himself. children at heart that be a should matter his own conscience and not the court's ...
Id. at 1275.
Schnepf, supra,
supports
proposition
14. See Cohen v.
which
that a
parents
child of
emancipated
divorced
can be
from one of them.
Kent,
County
15. In Kent v.
69 Lanc.L.Rev.
a Lancaster
Common
judge
twenty-one year-old’srequest
college suppоrt
Pleas
after
denied a
finding
emancipated.
living
she was
boyfriend
She was
with her
against her father’s wishes and the court concluded that this was
sufficient to show that she had left the
care
control
her father
was, therefore, ineligible
from him.
643-44,
Milne
In summary, we feel strongly that such behavior by adult child as that evidenced Caleb should not be en- dorsed or condoned. public policy ensuring that deprive divorce does not young of an adults opportunity an education is case; not at issue the social policy of sanctity family, however, is. It would be more easy and convenient *20 operate for us to arm’s length at and look test, at our only two-tiered all the mouthing while wisdom and the of patience. not, virtue This would how- ever, discharge our social responsibilities. To glorify higher institution of learning at the expense of the institu- tion of the family would be grave a and short-sighted mistake. Today, we therefore expand the two-tiered test heretofore in applied determining whether award to an adult child in college.
Based on foregoing discussion, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Karen Milne to to the contribute costs her son’s education. Accordingly, we vacate that portion the trial order court’s directing IY, Karen Milne to Milne, reimburse David the sum of $8,250 per year as her contribution toward college Caleb’s election, house, depart parent’s power charge from his with support, with his would tend to the destruction of all parental authority, family government. and invert the order of
Id. at 151-52. in part; vacated expenses. Order affirmed education part.
McEWEN, J., dissenting opinion. a files POPOVICH, OLSZEWSKI, join JJ. BROSKY McEWEN, J.
McEWEN, dissenting: Judge, which arises from appeal, The basic issue1 in this by appellee, Caleb underlying action instituted father, Milne, his mother is the effect against of a to assist estrangement qualified duty upon I his or her child. am education for provide I of the expression share the view compelled because Judge Pleas Court County eminent Common Montgomery estrangement should not bar William T. Nicholas that support. action for such 16, 1962, April married on Karen and David Milne were of 1984. later December separated twenty-two years marriage, Caleb, younger of two children born of his separation senior the time of the high school at was home with to reside in the marital parents, and continued until, in separation months after the his mother three March, of the strain relations between by reason mother, residence to he left the marital and his himself after Caleb his father. Six months reside the home of father, he matricu- in the home of his commenced reside completed of Richmond where University lated average. a 3.0 His and attained year freshman Milne, father, provided payment for the David appellee during the 1985-1986 aca- expenses all incurred Caleb to reside his father and Caleb continued year, demic *21 University, in at the Caleb residence whenever was College Cali- to attend Occidental originally had wished comple- him for fornia, when admitted and that institution studies, this action he commenced undergraduate of his tion support pending at the time of the for divorce was An aсtion hearing. support against of his mother and father to secure financial in meeting assistance anticipated year second expenses $16,000, of greater a sum far than approxi- his $3,000. mate yearly earnings of hearing The court conclud- estrangement ed that was not a bar an action for support son, (1) by father, directed appellee Caleb’s Milne, David to pay tuition, room, board, entire Caleb’s transportation (2) to and from college, directed Caleb’s mother, Milne, appellant Karen to partially reimburse David Milne such expenses education by remitting appellee ($3250.00 the sum of per week per year). $62.50 Appellant timely appealed.
The testimony of the parties established that Caleb did not communicate his mother moving visit after into father, the home of his that, and Karen Milne prior testified his her departure, “spat son in my face and shoved me so I fell over. He spat never push but once. He did me twice____ more than once. He struck me at least It was unpleasant Thus, our house.” there is quite a valid basis finding for the the hearing that, relate, court sad to mother and son estranged. were
The principles
guide
which
consideration
this claim by
a son for
by
contribution
mother toward the cost of
college study are well established.
“The
purpose
child
support
is to promote the best
child;
interest of the
legal
associated
obligation
parents is
provide
for the
expenses of raising
reasonable
the child.”
v. Sut-
Sutliff
liff,
393, 402,
515 Pa.
(1987).
528 A.2d
qualified duty
support
child
was
first delineated
this
ex
Court
Commonwealth
rel.
Sommerville,
Ulmer v.
200 Pa.Super.
We believe that the of this requires law Commonwealth father, circumstances, under certain a while attending college and that appeal brings squarely question before us the of what circumstances will justify the of a order in entry favor such child. In the first place, before the father should
203 college, the child in support order to a by court required his pursue willing successfully to able and child should be v. rel. ex Grossman of studies. Commonwealth course Grossman, 241, 315 supra, 236, 146 A.2d Pa.Super. 188 should have suffi- the father place, In the second (1958). him to to enable estate, or income earning capacity cient hardship. order without undue pay a for a education provide duty a requirement duty a as exacting child is a child of tender food, and shelter clothing provide It is a natural law himself. support unable to years to feed and nо sacrifice spare personal should nec- Therefore, the barest beyond offspring. protect personal sacrifice essities, required be a father should too a child necessities of in provide order comfort exacting require- The same himself. support young provide father of a not be demanded ment should himself. to support a child able college education required to that a father should be not suggesting areWe income the father’s college only when a child making any do so without he could is such that or estate child to send a who parents Most sacrifices. personal be rule can mathematical to do so. No sacrifice upon hardship extensive determine how formulated to support- him from it excuse will must be before a father judgment a matter of It must be college. ing child men and advised of sincere judgments a field where materially. differ ex Sommerville,
Commonwealth rel. Ulmer v. supra, 200 643-44, Ct. at A.2d Pa.Superior (emphasis 190 at 184 Emrick, v. Accord: Emrick original). 428, 430-431, 445 Pa. Leonard, Leonard v. 682, (1971); 284 A.2d 683 353 Pa.Super. Miller, 608-609, v. 604, 827, Miller (1986); 510 A.2d 829-830 83, 86-87, See also: Pa.Super. 74, (1979). 269 409 A.2d 76 Chesonis, v. Chesonis 113, 115-116, 372 Pa.Super. 538 A.2d Church, ex 1376, 1378 (1988); Commonwealth rel. v. Stump De 166, 169-171, 1358, 333 Pa.Super. (1984); A.2d 481 1360 Vergilius DeVergilius, v. 434, 436, 329 Pa.Super. A.2d 478 204 Curtis, 43-44,
866, Curtis (1984); Pa.Super. (1984). A.2d is, course, It well settled that appeal, a trial court’s order will not [o]n disturbed unless there is insufficient evidence sustain *23 or it the court abused in fashioning its discretion the “ abuse, An award. of discretion is not an error ‘merely of if in judgment, reaching but a conclusion the law overridden or misapplied, judgment or the exercised is unreasonable, manifestly or the result of partiality, preju- dice, ill-will, bias or as by shown the evidence or the ” record, discretion is abused.’ Fee, Fee 276, 279, 793, (1985) 344 Pa.Super. 496 A.2d 794 Boni, quoting Boni v. 102, 109, Pa.Super. 547, 302 448 A.2d DeWalt, (1982) (citations omitted). Accord: DeWalt v. 550 280, 283-284, Mi 365 Pa.Super. 508, (1987); 529 A.2d 510 Michael, chael v. 312, 315-316, 360 Pa.Super. 473, 520 A.2d Leonard, supra Leonard v. (1987); 475 Pa.Super. 353 at ex 608-609, 829; Commonwealth rel. Leider v. 510 A.2d at Leider, Pa.Super. 249, 254-256, 335 117, 484 120 A.2d Straub v. Tyahla, (1984); 411, Pa.Super. 414-415, 274 418 472, (1980). A.2d
Appellant initially argues hearing that the court abused its discretion when it held of estrangement that Caleb appellant and a support was not bar to an action for by Caleb. This Court has previously recognized only two prerequisities the entry of an college support: order of first, that willingness child establish a ability successfully pursue education, and, a secondly, that the evidence earning disclose an capacity income suffi cient to parent enable the to provide financial assistanсe to assuming the child question without undue hardship. estrangement preclude whether will an award support a not, attending college decision, child has until been precisely by appellate decided courts of this Comm onwealth,2 although stated, Supreme our Court has in the DeWalt, supra, 2. This issue was addressed dicta DeWalt v. 287-288, 512, Pa.Super. concurring opinion 529 A.2d at age eighteen, child under the support context of the with his or her parent spends of time a that “the amount obligation sup- parent’s on that bearing children has no his or her children has who never sees Even a port. or her children the best of his those duty support Witsberger, Melzer v. Pa. n. 480 A.2d ability.” (1984). 991, 996 n. 6 issue adds a confronts the squarely
This Court here of college sup- of an order entry to the prerequisite third child, virtue of the evidence that namely, port, parent, the child and the “deserv- relationship between I am or she seeks. unable ing” of the financial test for such two-tiered agree present the parent- include into inquiry should expanded instead, public I by reason relationship. would considerations, estrangement hold that policy itself, ability if has the not of the child and child should *24 re- parent has sufficient pursue college studies and the sourсes, duty continuing of the of the relieve to. a pursuing the of a child contribute education. among juris- those
This is now numbered Commonwealth the bond permit marriage dissolution of dictions which The legislature of “no-fault” divorce. through process the prolonged after con- procedure only “no-fault” adopted the sideration, proclaiming: and after findings Legislative and intent
§ protec- and the (a) society unit family is the basic public is of family paramount preservation tion and Therefore, the policy it is declared hereby concern. Pennsylvania of to: of the Commonwealth marriage (1) legal for dissolution Make the law the realities matrimonial dealing effective experience. 116-117, Chesonis, supra Fa.Super. A.2d at
Chesonis Cirillo, P.J.) (Concurring Opinion 1378-1379 (2) Encourage and effect reconciliation and settlement spouses, differences between chil- especially where dren are involved.
(3) primary Give consideration to the welfare of the family rather than the private vindication of rights or the punishment wrongs. matrimonial >{* >¡i $
Kf >S* £ 102(a)(1, 2), (3). Pa.C.S. § result, As a the dissolution of marriage permitted is without consideration the events or conduct may which divorce, led to have the discord and the and the focus during the division of assets the parties fact that the partners, were once rather than the circumstances which severed the It partnership. would seem as prudent, well as consistent, to inspired have the “realities” which the legisla- to adopt ture no-fault procedures estranged partners a marriage guide resolution instant issue of support.
First, finding the cause of estrangement between and child could only follow adversarial proceeding fault, into an impossible task for any earthly court since the determination require would review evaluation of dynamics of the family relationship over years of its existence. our As sister in Illinois tribunal opined addressing this issue: argues ... defendant his daughter that has refused have anything do with him for many years, estrangement daughter’s fault and since she has now reached her majority ought required not to be her support contribute further to for any purpose. Being required to daughter’s contribute to his ex- educational *25 penses by is characterized defendant as ‘penalty’ a which defendant insists he not required should be to sustain for ungrateful the benefit of an daughter____ Defendant no has cited Illinois cases and our research has likewise no produced directly applied authorities which have discussed the fault of concept bearing children on the obligation of parents. say However to as a law matter of estrangement that the parent between child and where re- parents matrimonal discord between there has been a can fault of child is solely in divorce be the sulting on reason or principle difficult to sustain either state a parents deciding Without which the was logic____ great insight it no acrimony requires the responsible relations daughter’s the attitudes and to conclude that shaped beyond influences by many her were parents with result of conduct of likely more the her control were parents. both 993-994, 284 N.E.2d Ill.App.3d
Hight Hight, (1972). demon- Second, principles application of risk/benefit relationship parent/ehild an into the inquiry strates that If, are parent the and child purposeful. would where a into fault were to be conducted and estranged, inquiry an obligation a parent court were to relieve the erroneously wrongly the child and would be support, society both a would deprived of the benefits which education hand, the err the other were court to bestow. On undeserving the burdening parent duty the to assist an finаn- child, damage thereby occasioned would be only the that the risk of parent. apparent cial loss the It thus outweighs the depriving deserving child far erroneously undeserving child. bestowing upon risk such a an benefit into Third, inquiry that an analysis cost/benefit reveals run, would, long prove estrangement the the the basis for child. Surely, for the as well as the parent, unwise the into fault will serve cement proceeding adverserial child, that filial parent and and cause bitterness between hand, all but irretrievable. On other relationship to be the nature and preclude an into inquiry if the courts were to for, estrangement, responsibility depth, as well as provided an financial assistance is enabled to view peace of the inner price estranged child as knowledge from the subsequent years certain to flow in material to thwart merely not permit that the did approach reconciliation. This but a future possibility mirrors, course, of the ancients that without the lesson *26 father unrelenting patience, forebearance, unfailing unending forgiveness, there could not have been a prodigal son.
Thus it is I that would hold that estrangement parent and should of itself, if the child has the ability pursue college studies and suffi- has resources, cient relieve the duty of continuing to contribute the support of a child pursuing education.
OLSZEWSKI, POPOVICH, JJ., BROSKY and join.
Superior of Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Dec. 1988.
Filed March