C.J.F. v. T.W.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

C.J.F. v. T.W.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 17, 2021·No. 1004 MDA 2020·Unpublished

Opinion

J-S51022-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

C.J.F. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : T.W.F. : : Appellant : No. 1004 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered June 25, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 1369-SA-2013

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2021

T.W.F. (“Father”) appeals from the order obliging him to pay child

support to C.J.F. (“Mother”) for two minor children. Father argues the court’s

allocation of the children’s additional expenses in proportion to the parties’

incomes, rather than by splitting them equally, was unjust. We affirm.

Father and Mother, formerly spouses, share equal custody of their two

minor children. The court ordered Father to pay child support starting in 2017.

In March 2020, Father filed a petition for modification of the existing support

order, alleging an increase in both Mother’s income and the children’s

expenses.

Following a support conference before a York County Domestic Relations

officer, the officer calculated the parties’ incomes and children’s expenses and

proposed a modified order of support. The court adopted the officer’s proposal,

and entered a corresponding modified support order on April 6, 2020. The J-S51022-20

court found Father’s monthly net income was $4,473.18 and Mother’s monthly

net income was $3,325.68, and that the parties shared custody equally. The

court ordered Father to pay $532.71 per month for support, plus arrears. The

court also ordered Father to provide medical insurance, and to pay 57% of the

unreimbursed medical expenses that exceeded $250 per child, annually. The

order specified that it included Father’s costs for health insurance and

horseback riding lessons, and Mother’s costs for childcare and karate lessons,

which the parties agreed to have included in the order. Modified Support

Order, 4/6/20, at 3 of 4. The monthly support award ordered by the court

included a 57% contribution by Father toward these additional expenses. 1

Father requested a hearing de novo, and the court held the hearing.2

Father argued against the court’s allocation of the unreimbursed medical

____________________________________________

1 The copy of the order included in the certified record does not include a breakdown of the support calculation. However, in the reproduced record submitted by Father and unchallenged by Mother, Father included the worksheets used by the conference officer to calculate support. These show the monthly support obligation was comprised of $573.75 for basic child support (representing an equalization of the parties’ incomes), an additional $45.89 in childcare (57% of total childcare cost), reduced by $25.55 that Father paid in medical insurance premiums (57% of cost of premiums), and further reduced by $61.38 (the remaining portion of 57% of the cost of horseback riding and karate lessons, after considering the portion Father paid directly).

2 A transcript of the hearing is not included in the certified record. See also Trial Court Opinion, 8/7/20, at 1-2 (noting Father failed to request a transcript). The docket also reflects Father filed a memorandum of law on June 19, 2020, but the memorandum is not in the certified record. Because our resolution of this appeal is not dependent upon the contents of the hearing transcript or Father’s memo, we will not quash this appeal.

-2- J-S51022-20

expenses and additional expenses in proportion to the parties’ net incomes,

considering that the court had ordered a basic support amount pursuant to

Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2) that equalized the parties’ incomes.

The court determined that it had allocated the expenses appropriately

according to Rule 1910.16-6. Trial Court Order, July 10, 2020, at 2, 4. The

court stated it “is constrained by the rules with regard to the equalization of

income and the allocation of additional expenses.” Id. at 3; see also Trial Ct.

Op. at 4 (“The Court advised the parties at the time of the de novo review

hearing that [it] would not make a decision which was contrary to the plain

language of the Rule. The calculation was made in line with the letter of the

Rule and is therefore correct”) (italics added). It also found “[t]here is no

indication that the expenses are not reasonable,” and that “Father does

indicate that it does not seem to affect an equitable determination.” Trial Ct.

Order at 2. The court reaffirmed the order of April 6, 2020. Id. at 3, 4.

Father appealed, and raises the following:

1. Is there a conflict between Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1910.16-4(c) and 1910.16-6?

2. Does the conflict between the Rules result in an obligor shouldering a greater share of childcare expenses, health insurance premiums, and other expenses of the children, despite the parties sharing custody of the children equally, and despite the equalization of incomes by adjustment of the child support pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4(c)?

T.W.F.’s Br. at 3 (suggested answers omitted).

-3- J-S51022-20

Mother argues that Father’s brief and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are

deficient because neither document explicitly alleges an abuse of discretion or

error of law and that we should therefore dismiss this appeal. We decline to

dismiss. The obvious point Father is making is that the trial court committed

an error of law by failing to construe the Rules of Civil Procedure in the manner

he suggests.

The standard of review governing an order for child support is abuse of

discretion. Hanrahan v. Bakker, 186 A.3d 958, 966 (Pa. 2018). “[A] court

abuses its discretion if it exercises judgment that is manifestly unreasonable

or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will as shown by the evidence

of record.” Id. We will only disturb a support order if “the trial court failed to

consider properly the requirements of the rules governing support actions.”

Id. To the extent the issues involve interpretation and application of the Rules

of Civil Procedure, which are questions of law, we employ a de novo standard

of review and plenary scope of review. Id.

Father does not specifically claim the court erred or abused its

discretion, but contends the court should have applied the Rules of Civil

Procedure differently when apportioning the children’s additional expenses

between the parties. Father argues the problem springs from a conflict

between Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2), which provides for the equalization of

incomes, and Rule 1910.16-6, which provides for the allocation of additional

-4- J-S51022-20

Father claims that in cases where the parties have similar incomes and

share equal custody, Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2) acts to provide for the equalization

of the parties’ incomes in order to put both parties on equal footing to provide

basic support for their children. Rule 1910.16-6 then provides for the court to

allocate the additional expenses in proportion to the parties’ incomes. Father

argues that when the parties share equal custody and the parties’ incomes

have been equalized under Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2), the court should allocate

any additional expenses under Rule 1910.16-6 in proportion to the parties’

equalized incomes – i.e., split 50-50. Father argues that allocating additional

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI