Heffley, T. v. Heffley, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 1084 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Sullivan

Opinion

J-S29019-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

TERRA LYN HEFFLEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : SEAN WILLIAM HEFFLEY : No. 1084 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD19-009308-015, PACSES No. 803117888

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: June 24, 2026

Terra Lyn Heffley (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s order

directing Sean William Heffley (“Father”) to pay child support in the amount

of $1,375 per month for their four minor children. We reverse and remand

for a determination of Father’s income for the purposes of assessing child

support.

In 2019, Husband filed a complaint for shared custody and a complaint

for divorce. In October 2021, the court granted the divorce decree. Petitions

for custody and under the Protection From Abuse Act (“PFA”) ensued, as well

as Mother’s prior appeal to this Court of a custody ruling.

Master’s hearings on child support commenced in 2020. At the first

hearing, Robert Zahner (“Mr. Zahner”), an expert in valuation, testified he

evaluated Father’s 2019 and 2020 net disposable income, including, inter alia,

his salary as a sales engineer at LogRhythm and his rental income from eight J-S29019-25

non-marital rental properties. See N.T., 9/3/20, at 3-6. Mr. Zahner estimated

Father’s net monthly income as $22,746 for 2019, and $16,146 for 2020.1

See id. at 17-18.2 At the time of the September 2020 hearing, Mother was

not working because she and Father had agreed she would not work until the

youngest child reached kindergarten. See id. at 42-44. Celia Evans (“Ms.

Evans”), an expert in vocational assessment and counseling, testified Mother’s

earning capacity was $55,868. See id. at 51-59.

Father testified some of the non-marital property is owned with his

brother and his expenses relating to those properties include management

fees; Father also expected to receive less rental income in 2020 than in 2019.

See N.T., 9/19/20, at 30-53. Father testified he wanted all the children to be

in school but admitted on cross-examination that he agreed the children could

be virtually schooled due to concerns about COVID-19. See id. at 55-56, 83-

85.

By order dated August 5, 2021, Father was required to pay $4,042 per

month in support, $1,500 of which was alimony. Father filed a petition for

____________________________________________

1 At a later hearing, Father testified temporary pay cuts occurred during COVID but his employer later reinstated his full salary. See N.T., 3/7/23, at 46.

2 Father’s full pay was later reinstated. See N.T., 9/19/20, at 87.

-2- J-S29019-25

modification in November 2022. On March 7, 2023, a hearing officer

conducted a hearing on Father’s petition.3

At the March 2023 hearing, Father’s attorney stated Father’s

Pennsylvania income for 2020 was $237,730. See N.T., 3/7/23, at 5. Counsel

stated Father’s wages were approximately $253,522 in 2021. See id.

Counsel additionally stated Father left his job at LogRhythm in mid-20224 for

a job at Netskope, hoping to increase his income, and earned approximately

$260,000, but did not have a salary after he was laid off from his job at

Netskope in November 2022. See id. at 5-6. Counsel stated Father began

receiving $594 in unemployment insurance in February 2023. See id.

Counsel further stated because of refinancing, Father was not receiving rental

income. See id. at 6-7. However, the evidence at the March hearing showed

that, on February 14, 2023, prior to the hearing, Father was again gainfully

employed as a senior sales engineer for D3 Security, with a base salary of

$186,000 plus commissions. Father also testified he received his first

paycheck from D3 Security. See id. at 8-9.5

3 Although Mother failed to ensure the presence of this transcript in the certified record and simply included it in her reproduced record, we may consider it because Father has raised no objection to its accuracy. See C.L. v. M.P., 255 A.3d 514, 518 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc); Layton-Herron v. Litke, 352 A.2d 510, 515, n.1 (Pa. Super. 2026).

4 Father later testified he left that job voluntarily. See id. at 37.

5 Father testified at D3 Security, he will earn a 3% commission on all sales

with no cap and will be vested with equity after one year. See id. at 40-41.

-3- J-S29019-25

Father also testified he paid $650 per month to the secretary who

managed his property; he claimed he spent $23,000 in 2023 on roof repairs

for five of the properties, and $12,000 to repair pipes in 2022. See id. at 10-

13. He testified he expected his net profit from rentals for 2022 would be

between $10,000 and $20,000. See id. at 15.

Mother testified about the cost of music lessons for the Children, fees

for sports activities, and a surgery for one of the Children she had to pay for

because insurance had lapsed. See id. at 57-59, 61. Mother also testified

Father had not paid any support since December of the prior year. See id. at

59. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer stated, “I will get a

recommendation out in the mail.” Id. at 63.

In March 2023, the hearing officer determined Mother’s earnings were

$44,900 and recommended that retroactive to November 23, 2022, Father

pay, inter alia, $1,375.09 per month in child support, plus $175 per month

toward his arrears of $3,255.64. The hearing officer based his assessment of

Father’s income on unemployment compensation and rental income. In June

2023, Mother filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation. See

The trial court denied Mother’s exceptions. See Order, 8/5/24.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court did not order

Mother to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and Mother did not file one. The

court filed an opinion on April 1, 2025.

-4- J-S29019-25

On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review:6

A. The trial court erred in failing to hold [Father] to an earning capacity based on his prior actual earnings.

B. The trial court erred in calculating [Father]’s income[] as he had obtained new full-time employment.

Mother’s Brief at 8 (capitalization standardized).

Mother’s first issue asserts that the trial court failed to state the reasons

for its assessment of Father’s earning capacity and that Father voluntarily left

a higher paying job, which should not lower his assessed earning capacity.

See Mother’s Brief at 15-19.

This Court’s standard of review in matters concerning child support

orders is as follows:

When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child’s best interests.

K.J.P. v. R.A.P., 68 A.3d 974, 978 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Child

support “is a shared responsibility requiring both parents to contribute to the

6 In violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2116, Statement of Questions Involved, Mother fails

to state her issues as questions and fails to state whether the trial court agreed or disagreed with each issue.

-5- J-S29019-25

support of their children in accordance with their relative incomes and ability

to pay.” Kersey v. Jefferson, 791 A.2d 419, 423 (Pa. Super. 2002). See

also Sichelstiel v. Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating

the “duty to support one’s child is absolute,” and noting child support awards

are calculated using specific statutory guidelines that account for a parent’s

ability to pay and the reasonable needs of the particular child).

A support obligation is subject to modification based on a showing of

changed circumstances. See Morgan v. Morgan, 99 A.3d 554, 557 (Pa.

Super. 2014). The trier of fact must adjust a party’s net monthly income for

“substantial continuing involuntary decreases in income due to an

employment situation over which the party has no control[.]” Pa.R.Civ.P.

1910.16(d)(2)(i). After it assesses a party’s earning capacity, a trier of fact

is required to state the reasons for the assessment in writing or on the record.

See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)(i). This Court cannot infer a factual finding

from a hearing officer’s silence, at a hearing or in a written report, about a

point in contention in a support hearing. See Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d at 537.

The trial court’s opinion is less than two pages long, restates the

recommendation the hearing officer made after the hearing, and does not

address either of Mother’s claims. See Opinion, 4/1/25. In its two substantive

paragraphs, the opinion recites that the hearing officer based Father’s income

on the amount he received in unemployment compensation and his rental

income and that the hearing officer determined the support amount on that

-6- J-S29019-25

basis. See id. at 1-2. Neither the hearing officer nor the opinion mentioned

Father’s new job that he had clearly started before the hearing occurred or

discussed the basis on which Father left his previous job.

Mother recites the factors used to determine earning capacity pursuant

to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1910.16-2(d)(4) and highlights the language permitting a

court to impute an income when a party fails to obtain or maintain appropriate

employment. See Mother’s Brief at 15. She faults the hearing officer for

failing to provide an earning capacity analysis or state the reasons for its

assessment of Father’s income. See id. at 17-18. Father responds that he

changed jobs within the same field hoping for a better opportunity, the rules

then in effect for determining income allowed adjustments for lay-offs, he

obtained a new job prior to the hearing, and he “credibly testified” his

Netskope employment was terminated. See Father’s Brief at 5-8. Father

further asserts the trial court properly found his loss of income was due to a

lay-off. See id. at 8. He cites a non-precedential opinion of this Court stating

that a monthly income will only be imputed after a court finds a willful failure

to find or maintain employment. See id. at 10-13.

The trial court erred by adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation

without discussion or analysis. Although Father asserts he gave credible

testimony, the hearing officer made no credibility determination – it ended the

hearing with no factual findings and then issued an order basing Father’s

income on the amount he received in unemployment compensation minus

-7- J-S29019-25

expenses related to real estate, without considering that the Father had

recently been employed making a base salary of $186,000. The hearing

officer’s brief report, mailed to the parties on March 28, 2023, makes no

reference to Father’s new job and new income. As in Sichelstiel, we cannot

infer a factual finding from a hearing officer’s silence, at a hearing and in a

written report, about a point in contention in a support hearing. See

Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d at 537. Thus, we cannot assume the hearing officer

made a finding that Father was credible, nor can we make any determination

about the hearing officer’s decision not to include Father’s income from his

new/current job.

In her second issue, Mother asserts the trial court erred in calculating

Father’s income because he had a new job as of February 14, 2023, at a salary

of $186,000 per year, and presented a pay stub for that employment at the

hearing. See Mother’s Brief at 20-21. Father asserts that although he had a

new job, his commission “which was a large part of his income,” was not yet

certain. Father’s Brief at 14. He further claims Mother should not have filed

exceptions from the hearing court’s order because an order of support is

effective from the date of the filing of the complaint or petition for modification

unless the order specifies otherwise. See Father’s Brief at 15, citing

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.17.

Here, the hearing court’s order – which the trial court cited without any

analysis does not make any finding concerning Father’s credibility.

-8- J-S29019-25

Additionally, Mother did not request that Father’s income be applied

retroactively to the time of his unemployment, rendering Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.17

inapposite, and would not be entitled to such an award pre-dating Father’s

beginning his new job in February 2023.

Most significantly, the hearing court did not take any account of the fact

Father had a new job at an annual salary of $186,000, even without

commissions. Instead, the hearing officer used Father’s unemployment

income to assess Father’s income in determining child support. That was legal

error.

We recognize a significant period has passed since the March 7, 2023,

hearing and the trial court’s April 1, 2025, Opinion, and that Father’s and/or

Mother’s incomes may have changed. We hold only that the court erred in

awarding child support based on Father’s unemployment income from

November 23, 2022, when Father was unemployed until February 14, 2023,

when Father began working again at a job that paid him $186,000 even

without commissions starting in February 2023. We remand for a new hearing

for the trial court to make the following determinations: (1) whether Father’s

decision to leave his job at LogRhythm constituted a willful failure to maintain

appropriate employment, (2) whether Father’s termination at Netskope

constituted a willful failure to maintain appropriate employment, (3) what

amount, if any, Father owes Mother in child support for the period between

the termination of his Netskope employment in November 2022, and his

-9- J-S29019-25

employment by D3 Security in February 2023, (4) and a determination of

Father’s and Mother’s income and any money Father owes Mother in Child

support for the period from February 14, 2023, until the date of the hearing,

and (4) a determination of Father’s future child support obligation based on

current employment.

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

6/24/2026

- 10 -