Tag Archive for: child support

Social Security Disability Benefits

The issue of social security disability benefits may arise in the context of a support action. Support actions in Pennsylvania are governed by a statewide guideline amount that correlates with the ability to pay. Ultimately, any support award will be based on the net incomes of the parties involved. Social security disability benefits are recognized as a source of income pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2. This is distinguishable from public assistance and supplemental security income (SSI) which are not included as income for purposes of support.

Where child support is being calculated and the child(ren) at issue are receiving their own social security benefit, the amount of their benefit also must be accounted for in the support calculation. PA RCP 1910.16-2(b) goes into detail about the treatment of benefits received by the children in the context of support. The child’s benefit should be added to the net income of the parents for determining what the basic child support award should be based on the state guidelines. The amount of child support based on the support guidelines is then reduced by the amount of the child’s benefit. After the reduction, the appropriate support award would be calculated after considering each parent’s share of the support obligation based on their income, as well as other relevant factors such as health insurance costs and custody.

Click here to read more on child support.

by

National Child Support Awareness Month

August is National Child Support Awareness Month. President Clinton began the month of recognition in 1995 as part of his welfare reform agenda. The goal was to improve the collection of child support payments by widening the use of sanctions including wage garnishment and suspending driver’s licenses and passports for parents with child support arrears. As of today in Pennsylvania, wage garnishment is virtually always utilized to ensure child support payments can be collected. Garnishments apply not only to the typical income which would be received from an employer, but also to social security and/or veterans benefits. Other methods of securing support payments include intercept of tax return refunds and even lottery winnings. Imprisonment is also a widely available sanction in the context of enforcement of child support obligations.

There has been backlash ever since President Clinton advocated for taking a tougher stance on non-paying parents. For one, the demands of child support are sometimes greater than the paying parent’s actual income. Or, support obligations pile up because the child support obligation does not automatically readjust to account for periods of disability, unemployment or incarceration of the paying parent. However, single parents do need the help of the other parent to provide a comfortable lifestyle for their child(ren). Seven states have joined in a pilot program that focuses on fostering financial stability for the paying parent so that they will be able to meet their support obligation without ending up destitute themselves. Hopefully, a balance can be struck between the seemingly competing interests of adequately providing for children as well as some financial reserve for the paying parent.

Click here to read more on Child Support

by

Contempt for Non-Payment of Support

In Warmkessel v. Heffner, 2011 PA Super 46, the Superior Court held that credit will not be given for time already spent in jail between being taking into custody and the support hearing due to non-payment of child support. The Defendant Father had been ordered to pay $260 per month in child support for his two children. After failing to pay regularly, several contempt petitions and a missed support enforcement hearing, the court issued a bench warrant for Father’s arrest. Police took the Father into custody a few months later and a hearing was scheduled for approximately 3 weeks out. At the hearing, the court found Defendant Father owed $6,037 in late child support payments and sanctioned him to a maximum of 3 months imprisonment. Defendant Father’s attorney asked the court to give Father credit for the 21 days already served and the court declined.

On appeal, the Defendant argued, among other things, that the purpose of incarceration as a sanction is meant to coerce parents to timely pay child support. Accordingly, the Defendant posits the time spent incarcerated based on the bench warrant issued by the family court was indistinguishable from the time incarcerated after the hearing in that the Defendant was able to reflect on the necessity to pay support in both circumstances. Defendant further argued that criminal defendants always receive credit for time served so the court violated his equal protection rights by treating him differently solely based on the civil nature of his case. The Superior Court determined that Defendant Father’s arguments on appeal were without merit and upheld the trial court’s decision.

The takeaway here is that child support obligations are a very serious matter. The family court has the authority to issue a bench warrant to have a party who is not making support payments taken into custody. Additionally, the court can order additional incarceration at a subsequent support hearing as a means of reiterating the importance of regular support payments and demonstrating the severity of the punishment available for failure to comply.

by

Basics of Child Support

Child support in Pennsylvania is based on statewide guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The guidelines are intended to ensure that similarly situated parties are treated similarly. Accordingly, all parties making $3000 per month with 3 kids would pay the same amount of support based on the guideline amounts. The guidelines are based on an “Income Shares Model.” Accordingly, the guideline amount will be based on the combined net monthly income of both parties.

The amount of support reflected in the guidelines is based on the average expenditures of children for food, housing, transportation and other necessary miscellaneous items. The guidelines make financial support of children a top priority. Accordingly, outside of the basic needs of the party providing support, the child’s needs in terms of support come first. Pennsylvania has established a self-support reserve based on the federal poverty guidelines. The current self-support reserve is $867 and a guideline amount of support that would leave a party with less than this sum will not be upheld. Instead, the award of support would be modified to leave the party with at least $867 per month.

In sum, parties should understand child support is a serious obligation. There is not much room for argument as far as what amount of support is appropriate. There is a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that the amount of support indicated by the guidelines is the appropriate amount. Further, Pennsylvania does maintain that the support of children is a top priority and is often unwillingly to change the support number based on the financial hardship it may inflict on the party owing support outside of the self-support reserve.

by

Evolving Issues in Family Law

Below are summaries of some of the most recent decisions on various family law topics.

Paternity by Estoppel – K.E.M. v. P.C.S.

In this case, Appellant, mother of G.L.M., brought an action for support against Appelle, the alleged father of G.L.M. Appellant was married to H.M.M. at the time G.L.M. was born. Further, H.M.M. had supported the child and acted as a father figure to G.L.M. for most of the child’s life. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the support action on the basis of a presumption of paternity and paternity by estoppel.

A presumption of paternity arises where a child is born into an intact marriage. In that circumstance, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the husband will be deemed to be the father. In this case, H.M.M. submitted to a paternity test which ruled him out as the father. Accordingly, the presumption of paternity was defeated.

Paternity by estoppel acts to impose an obligation on the party who holds themselves out as a father to the child and supports the child to continue to support the child. Appellee’s argument that H.M.M. had acted as G.L.M.’s father prompted the lower court and Superior Court to grant his motion to dismiss the support action against him and continue to hold H.M.M. responsible for G.L.M.’s support.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ultimately reversed the decision and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of paternity by estoppel is to keep families intact and protect the best interest of the child by shielding them from claims of illegitimacy and, potentially, a broken family. Accordingly, the court would need to be convinced that it was in the best interests of G.L.M. to continue to recognize Appellant’s husband, H.M.M., as the father. No such evidence was presented at the hearing. In summary, paternity by estoppel is still a viable principle in Pennsylvania, however, it must be supported by an analysis of what’s in the child’s best interests to succeed.

Custody Relocation – L.A.M. v. C.R.

In this case, the appeal challenged the lower court’s decision to grant mother’s petition to relocate to Boston with the children on the basis that the provisions of the new custody law were not applied. The Superior Court upheld the lower court’s decision finding that the provisions of the new custody law did not have to be complied with since mother’s petition to relocate was filed before the new laws came into effect. The Appellant argues, however, that the hearing took place after the new laws came into effect.

The crux of the issue is how to interpret the what constitutes a proceeding under the new law. Any proceeding commenced after the effective date of the law is to be governed by the new law while any proceeding commenced before the effective date of the law is to be governed by the law in effect at the time the proceeding was initiated. The lower court found, and Superior Court affirmed, that mother’s petition was the determinative proceeding and since it was filed before the effective date of the new law, the old law should govern at the hearing.

Judge Donohue disagrees with the majority and posits that the provisions of the new custody laws should have governed over the hearing. Judge Donohue’s interpretation categorizes the hearing as a separate proceeding from the petition. Accordingly, since the hearing occurred after the effective date of the new law, it should be governed by the new law. Judge Donohue argues that this interpretation of the term proceeding allows for the “broadest possible application of the procedures and legal standards in the new Act.”

Second, Judge Donohue believes the trial court erred in allowing the mother to relocate. Under the framework of the new law which arguably should have applied, there were ten factors the trial court should have considered before ruling on the relocation pursuant to 23 Pa C.S. § 5337(h). The trial court failed to consider all the factors under the statute and for that Judge Donohue argues it erred as a matter of law in reaching its decision.

Furthermore, Judge Donohue argues the trial court did not even consider the necessary factors under the old law as outlined in Gruber. Specifically, the trial court concluded the relocation would be in the best interests of the children and substantially improve the quality of life for mother and children without evidence supporting the same. Specifically, mother did not have a job or a place to live lined up in Boston. Further, mother argued the move would also allow her to continue her education but she had not been accepted into any graduate programs in Boston. Finally, Judge Donohue was not convinced that an adequate alternative custody order could be established based on the heavy involvement of father in the children’s lives and mother’s lack of income or other resources to share transportation in the event of a move.

by