Court Doubles Father’s Child Support Obligation Due To Father’s Expenses Being Paid By Second Wife
August 17, 2015
Publications
Court Doubles Father’s Child Support Obligation Due To Father’s Expenses Being Paid By Second Wife
In the 2015 Pennsylvania Superior Court Decision, J.P.D v. W.E.D, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to double a father’s child support payment because the majority of father’s expenses were paid by father’s second wife.
The parties were divorced in 2008. In 2013, father filed a petition with the court seeking a modification of his child support obligation. At the time of the hearing, father testified that he earned $20,000 per year. Despite father’s earnings, the court held father to an “earning capacity” finding that father had the ability to earn $45,725 per year, plus an additional $8,880 per year in non-tax car and phone benefits.
Regarding father’s expenses, he testified that he does not pay any of his own expenses. Father’s second wife pays the mortgage, car payments, utilities and entertainment expense. Since father’s second wife owned several successful companies, father and his second wife jointly earned approximately $1,000,000 in annual net income.
Although the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines provided father with a monthly child support obligation of $665 per month based on his income, the trial court awarded an upward “deviation” of an additional child support payment of $701 per month. Father’s child support obligation from the trial court of $1,365 was more than double the amount provided by the guidelines.
The Superior Court upheld the trial’s court’s decision by holding that “both parents have an equal obligation to support their children in accordance with the capacity and ability of each to do so.” Furthermore, “a parent is required to sacrifice personal luxuries to provide his or her children with their needs.”
In this situation, the trial court properly found that all of father’s income was available for child support, and the trial court properly “deviated” from the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines. The Court also reasoned that the child support payment was only a fraction of father’s “earning capacity,” and father was left with more than 50% of his net monthly income.
© 2015 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
FAMILY LAW UPDATE is presented with the understanding that the publisher does not render specific legal, accounting or other professional service to the reader. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, information contained in this publication may become outdated. Anyone using this material must always research original sources of authority and update this information to ensure accuracy and applicability to specific legal matters. In no event will the authors, the reviewers or the publisher be liable for any damage, whether direct, indirect or consequential, claimed to result from the use of this material.
