We previously discussed Catholic school tuition in a Bucks County divorce.  In Gibbons v. Kugle,the court decided upon mother's request for a support adjustment for Catholic school.  

Parochial schools fall within the definition of a private academic school and, therefore, within the purview of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-6(d) of the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines. The Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines allow a court to include private school tuition in the support amount if the court determines that the need for private school is a reasonable one. In determining whether a need is reasonable, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has stated: A private school education may be a reasonable need for a child if it is demonstrated that the child will benefit from such and if private schooling is consistent with the family's standard of living and station in life before the separation. If these factors are proved, a court may order a parent to provide financial support for the private schooling of a minor child. 

Remember --In the context of the factors to be used in determining standard of living for purposes of a child support order, the critical factor in determining the standard of living is clearly the financial circumstances of the obligee, not his philosophical position on the precise limits of the good life - what he can afford is the question, not what he is willing to pay for. In determining standard of living, one must look to available income and the lifestyle that the income would support. This is consistent with other decisions in this jurisdiction that have defined standard of living and station in life in terms of economic factors. The term "standard of living" refers to the level of material comfort as measured by the goods, services, and luxuries available to an individual, group, or nation. These must be discussed with your Bucks County divorce lawyer.  

In Gibbons v. Kugle, at the time of the father's separation from appellee mother, the child was not of school age. The child moved out-of-state with the mother and began attending public school when she became school age. After the mother remarried, the mother and child moved into the stepfather's household and school district. The child attended a public school in which there were disciplinary problems, fights, and other disruptions. As a result, the mother placed the child in a parochial school. The school's tuition was $ 6,230. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the father, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-6(d), to pay parochial school tuition. The trial court's factual findings supporting the determination that private school was a reasonable need were supported by the record. Parochial school was consistent with the family's standard of living prior to the separation. The fact that the child did not attend parochial school prior to the separation was of no moment, as the child was not of school age at that time and the father had a substantial income at the time of the separation and at the time of the instant appeal.  

Earlier we talked about the equal division of property during a divorce, and what factors go into how the court decides who gets what.  Today we will be looking a specific case that has a lot of twists and turns.

In the divorce case of Reber v, Reiss, the property being divided is DNA, which is weird to some but to other something more valuable than the house because it can relate to a later pregnancy.

“Endangering welfare of children” has many different definitions and interpretations of it but the most precise one is a parent, guardian, or a supervising person watching someone under the age of 18 commits a crime by knowingly endanger the child by violating a duty of protection, care, or support.

Punishment for a endangering a child can range very far on the spectrum of offenses.  A small offense could land you a 1st degree misdemeanor and a more serious offense you could possibly end up with a 3rd degree felony. If you think this has happened to someone you know or your own child call a Bucks County divorce lawyer or a Bucks County criminal lawyer to discuss your legal rights and protections and defenses.  

In the case of Commonwealth v. Lilley, it’s tricky because some think the sentence of 27-54 months is a little excessive for a 3rd degree misdemeanor.

In 2009 the Superior Court of Pennsylvania deemed the sentencing of Mr. Lilley not excessive, and upheld his conviction of 27-54 months in prison.  A lot of people of people might be asking themselves why is a 1st degree misdemeanor could be up to 27-54 months in jail? Well a lot of people did not know that while on the stand the defendant admitted to sexually assaulting a girl sometime in 2005.  Because of the admission of the sexual assault, the judge raised the sentence. If you want to know more about this case please visit:  Commonwealth v. Lilley 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super 2009)

A Pennsylvania stalking charge is, unfortunately, sometimes common for Bucks County divorce lawyers to confront for their clients.  The crimes code defines it as, 

A person commits the crime of stalking when the person either:

(1)  engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person; or

(2)  engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.

Where a divorce decree has been entered the court may allow alimony, as it deems responsible, to either party only if it finds that alimony is necessary.  Alimony is a court ordered provision for the spouse. There are many factors that determine the necessity of alimony and the court helps in determining the nature, amount, duration, and manner of payment of alimony.  If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County divorce lawyers to get this taken care of quickly.

In the case, Gates v. Gates, The couple had been married for ten years, and settled on and agreement of money paid to the wife to be $4,000 a month for 11 years.

In this case, parties signed a binding pre marital agreement.  At the time of the hearing the wife had a no earning capacity, no separate income generating assets, and was receiving $1,214 per month from a disability.  The husband on the other hand had a net worth in excess of $3,000,000 while also earning a six figure salary.  The two settle on a deal that didn’t terrible hurt the husband financially and was able to sustain the wife.  For your information the cite for Gates is Gates v. Gates 933 A.2d 102.     

A very challenging area of the law in a Bucks County divorce is the nurturing parent doctrine.  The nurturing parent doctrine recognizes that a custodial parent who stays at home and cares for a child does, in fact, support the child. This is normally terminated when the child reaches school age.  In determining whether to expect a nurturing parent to seek employment, the trial court must balance factors such as the age and maturity of the child, the availability and adequacy of others who might assist the custodial parent, and the adequacy of available financial resources if the parent does remain at home. Moreover, the court is not strictly bound by the nurturing parent's assertion that the best interest of the child is served by the parent's presence in the home. 

The nurturing parent doctrine permits a court to consider a parent's desire to stay home to raise young children and, when appropriate, excuse such a parent from contributing support payments. The doctrine is fact-sensitive. There is no absolute rule that earning capacity cannot be imputed to a parent who chooses to stay home with a minor child. Of course, a court is not strictly bound by the nurturing parent's assertion that the best interest of the child is served by the parent's presence in the home. It is for the court to determine the child's best interest. But the court must balance several factors before it can expect the nurturing parent to seek employment. Among those factors are the age and maturity of the child; the availability and adequacy of others who might assist the custodian-parent; the adequacy of available financial resources if the custodian-parent does remain in the home. While not dispositive, the custodian-parent's perception that the welfare of the child is served by having a parent at home is to be accorded significant weight in the court's calculation of its support order. 

A court is not strictly bound by the nurturing parent's assertion that the best interest of the child is served by the parent's presence in the home. It is for the court to determine the child's best interest. But the court must balance several factors before it can expect the nurturing parent to seek employment. Among those factors are the age and maturity of the child; the availability and adequacy of others who might assist the custodian-parent; the adequacy of available financial resources if the custodian-parent does remain in the home. While not dispositive, the custodian-parent's perception that the welfare of the child is served by having a parent at home is to be accorded significant weight in the court's calculation of its support order. 

Divorce in Bucks County based on "irretrievable breakdown"  

We have previously discussed Bucks County divorce based on fault grounds.  Now, we turn to the more typical no-fault divorce of irretrievable breakdown.  The law states, under 3301(d), 

d)  Irretrievable breakdown.--

(1)  The court may grant a divorce where a complaint has been filed alleging that the marriage is irretrievably broken and an affidavit has been filed alleging that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years and that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the defendant either:

(i)  Does not deny the allegations set forth in the affidavit.

(ii)  Denies one or more of the allegations set forth in the affidavit but, after notice and hearing, the court determines that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years and that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

(2)  If a hearing has been held pursuant to paragraph (1)(ii) and the court determines that there is a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, then the court shall continue the matter for a period not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days unless the parties agree to a period in excess of 120 days. During this period, the court shall require counseling as provided in section 3302 (relating to counseling). If the parties have not reconciled at the expiration of the time period and one party states under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall determine whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. If the court determines that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall grant the divorce. Otherwise, the court shall deny the divorce.  

Discussion of the irretrievable breakdown in Bucks County

While marriage is a happy occasion celebrated by friends and family, there is also an aspect of law involved with marriage too.  You can go to a district justice in Bucks County to get married.  But, before getting married a couple must obtain a marriage license from the Commonwealth.  A license issued under this part shall authorize a marriage ceremony to be performed in any county of this Commonwealth.  In order to receive a license, the person issuing the license must be satisfied with the identity of both people receiving the application.

Before a marriage license can be granted, a couple must submit an application for a license.  The application must be written and verified by both parties intending to marry.  The application includes basic background facts about each partner such as full name, occupation, address, age, birthplace, information about parents and medical history, any other facts necessary to mention, etc.

After applying for a marriage license there is a minimum three-day waiting period.  No persons shall receive a license with three days of submitting the application. However some exceptions can be made in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances or if the applicant is a member of the National Guard or armed forces and is called into active duty.

This refers to whenever married persons holding property, as tenants by entireties are divorced, they shall hold the property as tenants in common of equal one-half shares in value.  Either of them may bring action against the other to have the property sold and the proceeds divided equally between them.  If something like this did happen to you, you should call your Bucks County divorce lawyers to get this take care of quickly.

In the case, City of Easton v. Marra, the trial court properly applied the doctrine of in custody of the law and properly divided processes equally.

In this case, Marra had divorced her spouse and he had passed away before they settled the property dispute.  Due to lack of ability to pay the taxes the city of Easton took over the properties.  Finally when Marra decided to sell the trial court stayed tax sale until completion of equitable distribution.  For your information the cite for Marra is City of Easton v. Marra 862 A.2d 170 (Pa. Commw. 2004)

If your children go to Catholic school in Bucks County, for example, how is that figured out with support?  As many can guess, it can be expensive and generally can't be afforded by one party.  Your Bucks County divorce attorney should fight for your ability to share these expenses.   

The support schedule does not take into consideration expenditures for private school tuition or other needs of a child which are not specifically addressed by the guidelines.  If the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas determines that one or more such needs are reasonable, the expense thereof shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes.  The obligors share may be added to his or her basic support obligation.  

What is reasonable comes down to the divorce judge.  The general rule is that a disruption in schooling or camp that was previously provided during the marriage, absent any overwhelming issue, will continue on in the separation/divorce.   

All marriages are fun, loving, and really a beautiful thing…. until they turn into ugly legal battles for who gets what. When a couple divorces, the courts divide the property shared by the couple without any regard to marital misconduct, which the court deems just after considering all of the different factors.  If you think something isn’t fair, or need help with a divorce call Bucks County divorce lawyer.

There are 11 different factors that the courts go through to determine who gets what. In the two subsequent sections detailing with alimony, counsel fees, and expenses, Section 3701 and 3702, the court may after a hearing may use different types of ways to get the spouse to pay the alimony in different ways.  Some of the major ways that the court uses to make the spouse pay alimony is: length of marriage, future opportunity of each party to acquire capital assets and income, value set apart to each party, standard of living established during the marriage, and custody of the children. All of these things are court ordered ways to make sure that the alimony payment comes on time and is actually paid.

The cite is:  Woskob v. Woskob, 2004 PA Super 37 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).  The issues involve changes in earning capacity.  Specifically, where divergence exists between actual earnings and earning capacity, support obligations should be determined more by earning capacity than actual earnings because earning capacity is more indicative of ability to pay support than actual earnings.  Your Bucks County divorce lawyers should fight for your if this happens.  

Additionally, a person's support obligation is determined primarily by the parties' actual financial resources and their earning capacity. Although a person's actual earnings usually reflect his earning capacity, where there is a divergence, the obligation is determined more by earning capacity than actual earnings. Earning capacity is defined as the amount that a person realistically could earn under the circumstances, considering his age, health, mental and physical condition, training, and earnings history.

In any event, in this 2004 case, the estate of appellant father appealed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Civil Division, which awarded appellee mother $ 23,824 in child support arrears and $ 473 for unreimbursed medical expenses. The mother also cross-appealed.

On appeal, the parties raised several issues. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by omitting the advances accrued in 1996 in its calculation of the father's arrearage because the father provided the trial court with an adequate explanation as to why the advances were treated as a loan. The father presented competent evidence that he did not conspire to terminate his employment where he secured the most lucrative employment he could find. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the father had an earning capacity of $ 59,000 because his salary at his previous job was far greater than his actual earning capacity and his salary at his current job was less than his actual earning capacity. The trial court properly chose not to apply the nurturing-parent doctrine to the mother because the parties' three minor children attended school during the day and the mother's youngest child was not the father's responsibility. Finally, the trial court properly adjusted the father's support obligation to account for the mortgage payment on the marital home because the mortgage exceeded one-quarter of the mother's net income.

In most divorces the spouse is ordered to pay some child support to the other who needs the money to help support her and the children. In many cases, the spouse ordered to pay child support misses or don’t make the payments at all. When these kinds of things happen the court do different things to make sure of the “enforcement of arrearages”.  If you have a problem with your own payments contact Bucks County divorce lawyer.

The court has the power to make the person pay the arrearages in many different ways; there are 7 different powers that the courts use to enforce the payments. The important ones are: award interest on unpaid installments; require security to insure future payments, and award counsel fees and costs.

In the case of Willoughby v. Willoughby the spouse is in prison and the ball is in the courts hands to see how he will make the payments.

Roy Willoughby was incarcerated for criminal activity, and the court had to determine if his jail time permitted him to not to pay his alimony payments to his wife and family. The court ruled that the incarceration does not justify the modification of paying the wife’s alimony payments. They also ruled that just because the husband not is able to pay the “arrearages” while in prison, they should not be eliminated while he is serving his sentence or when he is released. When Mr. Willoughby is released there will be a trial court hearing under Section 3703 to enforce the payment of arrearages.  The cite is:  Willoughby v. Willoughby 862 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super 2004).

What happens if a spouse moves out of the house, gets an apartment and stops paying towards the mortgage of the marital home?  Can you make the spouse that moved out financially responsible?  

As you can guess, this happens quite frequently for Bucks County divorce lawyers and their clients.  What can you do?  

The guidelines assume that the spouse occupying the marital residence will be solely responsible for the mortgage payment, real estate taxes, and homeowners' insurance.  Similarly, the court will assume that the party occupying the marital residence will be paying the items listed unless the recommendation specifically provides otherwise.  If the obligee is living in the marital residence and the mortgage payment exceeds 25% of the obligee's net income (including amounts of spousal support, alimony pendente lite and child support), the court may direct the obligor to assume up to 50% of the excess amount as part of the total support award.  If the obligor is occupying the marital residence and the mortgage payment exceeds 25% of the obligor's monthly net income (less any amount of spousal support, alimony pendente lite or child support the obligor is paying), the court may make an appropriate downward adjustment in the obligor's support obligation.

When the court looks at "mortgages", this includes any and all secured debt on the home, including a HELOC and second mortgages.  

I had a case a long time ago where the spouse in the marital home moved for a mortgage adjustment, yet she was not making mortgage payments and the home was going towards foreclosure.  Fortunately, we successfully argued in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas that the mortgage adjustment should not apply, saving my client thousands of dollars.   

What happens if a person hits the Powerball during a divorce?  A Bucks County divorce lawyer who is lucky enough to have a client hit the lottery, better know how to advise them properly.  It comes down to timing of when the ticket is purchased and when the winning occurs.  As you can guess, there is limited case law since lottery is a horrible game of chance.  

Livingston v. Unis suggested that lottery proceeds won during parties' marriage was marital property. Appellant's ex-wife entered into a decree of equitable distribution that entitled her to her ex-husband's lottery winnings. Prior to the decree, appellee creditor obtained a judgment by confession against the ex-husband and obtained a writ of attachment garnishing the lottery proceeds. The trial court determined that appellee creditor's garnishment was proper and that it was not affected by the later decree of equitable distribution. Appellant sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the trial court exceeded the scope of Pa. R. Civ. P. 3118 by doing more than maintaining the status quo, but affirmed because appellant failed to show prejudice. Further, the court held that appellee creditor's garnishment was a proper judicial order under § 8 of the Lottery Law, 72 P.S. § 3761-8, that the garnishment had priority over the decree of equitable distribution, and that the lottery proceeds, although marital property, were not immune from attachment by creditors. In addition, the court held that appellee Pennsylvania State Lottery was not immune from attachment and garnishment because it was engaged in a commercial-like venture.

Additionally, in Nuhfer v. Nuhfer stated that lottery proceeds received post-separation are marital preoprty because ticket was purchased during the marriage.  Seven months prior to his separation from appellee ex-wife, appellant ex-husband participated in an office lottery pool. Subsequently, one of appellant's co-workers filed the winning ticket with the lottery bureau, claiming ownership of the winning ticket. The co-worker maintained that she had purchased the winning ticket with her own funds, and not those of the office lottery pool; however, appellant and several co-workers brought suit claiming an ownership interest in the lottery ticket. Appellant's suit reached a settlement, the terms of which, remained confidential. The court held that appellant's cause of action against the co-worker accrued when he contributed to the purchase price of the lottery ticket, which was before his separation from appellee; therefore, the payment received as a result of the settlement of appellant's claim was marital property subject to equitable distribution, pursuant to 23 Pa. Const. Stat. § 401(e)(8). As such, the court affirmed the order that included the settlement proceeds as marital property subject to equitable distribution.

Video depositions are any deposition upon oral examination that are both audibly and visually recorded.  They are permitted in a Bucks County divorce.  

Your Bucks County divorce lawyer, if they are the attorney taking the deposition, should take positive custody of the videotaped deposition and shall provide a copy to opposing counsel at cost.  If the deposition is introduced into trial, it will be a transcribed the same way as if oral testimony will be given.  

This is all covered under Rule 4017.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Some other big issues -- A video is not allowed to be used in court without a stenographer present. It also makes video depositions much more common and typical.  

Primarily targeting abused spouses, Gov. Wolf recently signed a bill allowing for victims/spouses of certain crimes to expedite their divorce filing.  

Most Bucks County divorce lawyers have represented a person in custody/incarceration.  The new law will presume the consent of the other party if they have been convicted of committing a personal injury crime against their spouse.  This would mean that the standard 2 year waiting period on a non-consent divorce goes away and there is a 90-day period like a consent divorce.  The bill goes into what a "personal injury crime" is defined as, but it involves some very serious crimes that are felonies (i.e. homicide, kidnapping, human trafficking) as well as some misdemeanors (i.e. assault).  By far, it appears that the "assault" issue will probably be the crime that triggers such a filing as it is the most common crime in domestic violence.  

So what is the timing of this filing?  First, note that the law states a "CONVICTED." HAVING BEEN FOUND GUILTY, HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE OR HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED INTO ACCELERATED REHABILITATIVE DISPOSITION."  Since there needs to be a "conviction" under the bill, a spouse will have to wait many months for an adjudication on the underlying criminal charge.  So, it may make sense to file for the divorce after the conviction.  Therefore, this could take 6+ months before the conviction occurs as trials and criminal litigation takes a long time.  

But, there may be an argument, however, that a person can initiate a filing for divorce while the case is pending.  A judge most likely won't enter the order until the conviction occurs.  But, it can save time and essentially parallel the pending criminal charges.  It will be interesting to see how the courts treat these filings with respect to the timing.  

Over the past generation, the adoption rights movement in the United States has gained in both strength and political savvy.  Although there are no accurate national statistics on the number of adoptees who seek out the identity of their birth parents, the media in recent years has increased public awareness about adoption-related issues ranging from psychological ramifications of life without blood tie to embattled legislative efforts to unseal adoption records.  

Some adoptees feel the need to inspect their original birth certificates and will hire a Bucks County divorce lawyer to help.  Others simply want current medical histories.  Whatever the motivation, the resulting confrontation fits the cloak of confidentiality surrounding the adoption process against what some adoptees view to be their fundamental right -- and emotional need to know -- their biological origins.  

At the termination of adoption proceedings, the entire record is sealed and withheld from inspection except on an order of court granted upon cause shown under Section 2905(a).  Any disclosure with respect to the identity of birth parents may be made only with their consent.  Absent such consent, the disclosure of general information may be made only if such disclosure protects the anonymity of the birth parents under Section 2905(b).  

Under 28 Pa. Code Section 1.49(b), a birth parent may consent to the disclosure of his or her identity by filing a Biological Parent Registration Identification Form with the Division of Vital Records of the Department of Health.  Forms may be requested at 1-877-PA-Health.  

Section 2904 deals with when an individual interferes with the custody of children.  This can be filed by the district attorney in Bucks County or by way of a "private criminal complaint".  This should be consulted with a Bucks County divorce lawyer because it will be important to see what the implications could be for the underlying custody matter.  The sections states, 

§ 2904.  Interference with custody of children.

(a)  Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he knowingly or recklessly takes or entices any child under the age of 18 years from the custody of its parent, guardian or other lawful custodian, when he has no privilege to do so.

(b)  Defenses.--It is a defense that:

(1)  the actor believed that his action was necessary to preserve the child from danger to its welfare; or

(2)  the child, being at the time not less than 14 years old, was taken away at its own instigation without enticement and without purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child; or

(3)  the actor is the child's parent or guardian or other lawful custodian and is not acting contrary to an order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Custodial interference is a felony of the third degree.  A person convicted under Section 2904 of the Crimes Code may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years and should get a private Bucks County criminal lawyer.  

The defendant must knowingly or recklessly take or entice any child under 18 from the custody of the child's parent, guardian, or other lawful custodian -- when the defendant has no privilege to do so.  Taking connotes a substantial interference with parental control and requires an affirmative physical removal of the child.  Enticing means to wrongfully solicit, persuade, procure, allure, attract, draw by blandishment, coax or seduce.  

In promulgating Section 2904, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania followed the lead of the Model Penal Code and removed from the general crimes of kidnapping the special case of custodial interference.  Custodial interference is distinguishable by the fact that the defendant is usually a parent or other relative who is favorably disposed toward the child and who does not think of his or her actions as harmful.  

Pennsylvania's child support guidelines make financial support of a child a primary obligation. They assume that parties with similar net incomes will have similar reasonable and necessary expenses. After the basic needs of the parents have been met, the child's needs shall receive priority. The guidelines assume that if the obligor's net income is less than $ 550, he or she is barely able to provide for basic personal needs. In these cases, entry of a minimal order is appropriate after considering the party's living expenses. In some cases, it may not be appropriate to order support at all.  

Pennsylvania's child support guidelines and every Bucks County divorce lawyer use the net incomes of the parties, and are based on the assumption that a child's reasonable needs increase as the combined net income of the child's parents increases. Each parent is required to contribute a share of the child's reasonable needs proportional to that parent's share of the combined net incomes. The custodial parent makes these contributions entirely through direct expenditures for food, shelter, clothing, transportation and other reasonable needs. In addition to any direct expenditures on the child's behalf, the non-custodial parent makes contributions through periodic support payments.

The case of Ricco v. Novitski, 2005 PA Super 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) highlights a procedural posture where Appellant, a mother of a profoundly disabled teen-ager, challenged a Columbia County Common Pleas Court, Civil Division, order that, on review of an administrative determination of appellee father's child support obligation, applied a Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-5 downward deviation from guidelines amounts that eliminated the father's obligation, based on a finding that the child was provided for by a special needs disability trust.

Remember -- for a case to get this far and be reviewed, when evaluating a support order, the Pennsylvania Superior Court may only reverse the trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. It 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 the case, the child had been profoundly disabled from birth. The mother placed the proceeds of a medical malpractice settlement in a special needs disability trust as authorized under federal law. After expenditures for a house and car adapted to the child's needs, the mother received $ 500 per month that she used solely for the child's special needs, such as socialization experiences, but paid his ordinary expenses herself. The trial court had granted a downward deviation from the guidelines that left the father with no obligation whatsoever, on the grounds that the mother had paid for her house and car with trust money, so that it would not be fair to impose a support obligation on the father. The appellate court held that this was an abuse of discretion. The guidelines authorized elimination of the obligation only in cases involving parents with almost no income. In every other case, parents were expected to provide support. In the case before it, the trust's purpose was to enable the custodial parent to provide for the child's special needs. Moreover, it would have to provide for all his needs one day, especially if he outlived his parents.

The child had been profoundly disabled from birth. The mother placed the proceeds of a medical malpractice settlement in a special needs disability trust as authorized under federal law. After expenditures for a house and car adapted to the child's needs, the mother received $ 500 per month that she used solely for the child's special needs, such as socialization experiences, but paid his ordinary expenses herself. The trial court had granted a downward deviation from the guidelines that left the father with no obligation whatsoever, on the grounds that the mother had paid for her house and car with trust money, so that it would not be fair to impose a support obligation on the father. The appellate court held that this was an abuse of discretion. The guidelines authorized elimination of the obligation only in cases involving parents with almost no income. In every other case, parents were expected to provide support. In the case before it, the trust's purpose was to enable the custodial parent to provide for the child's special needs. Moreover, it would have to provide for all his needs one day, especially if he outlived his parents.

The court reversed the order and remanded the matter to the administrative agency to recalculate the father's obligation in accordance with the guidelines.

One of the grounds for divorce can be fault, which states, 

§ 3301.  Grounds for divorce.

(a)  Fault.--The court may grant a divorce to the innocent and injured spouse whenever it is judged that the other spouse has:

(1)  Committed willful and malicious desertion, and absence from the habitation of the injured and innocent spouse, without a reasonable cause, for the period of one or more years.

(2)  Committed adultery.

(3)  By cruel and barbarous treatment, endangered the life or health of the injured and innocent spouse.

(4)  Knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage while a former marriage is still subsisting.

(5)  Been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two or more years upon conviction of having committed a crime.

(6)  Offered such indignities to the innocent and injured spouse as to render that spouse's condition intolerable and life burdensome.

Can a person get rid of alimony or child support requirements through a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy?  

It's a common story.  Most Bucks County divorce lawyers should know that  despite difficulty in distinguishing between property division and support obligations, several criteria for deciding the issue do exist. By far the most important two concerns are: 1) the intentions of the parties and/or the divorce court at the time the obligation was formed; and 2) the effect and function of the obligation imposed

A state or a federal court must apply federal bankruptcy law, not state law in an action under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(5). In assessing the nature of the underlying marital obligation at issue, courts will look to the intent, form, characteristics and purposes served by the imposed marital debt. Often these features of the debt can be judged only on the basis of state matrimonial law. However, characterization of the debt under state domestic relations law will not necessarily dispose of the dischargeability issue. Both the language of the § 523(a)(5) and the countless federal bankruptcy cases interpreting it dictate that a court eschew a rigid application of state law labels in favor of a search for the substance and function of the obligation involved. Moreover, this search must be conducted with an eye toward the purposes underlying the bankruptcy code and the exception to discharge created by § 523(a)

Then there is the case of Buccino v. Buccino, 397 Pa. Super. 241 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990).  Here, Appellant challenged a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County that found debts arising from the parties' divorce decree were necessary for the support and maintenance of appellee spouse and the parties' minor child and therefore were not subject to discharge in bankruptcy.  The parties' divorce decree imposed various financial liabilities on appellant. Subsequent to the entry of the divorce decree, appellant filed a bankruptcy petition with the federal bankruptcy court, listing appellee as a creditor and seeking discharge under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(5) of the liabilities imposed by the divorce decree. The bankruptcy court granted appellee's motion to have a state court determine the dischargeability of debts pursuant to the divorce decree. The state court held that the debts in question were necessary for the support and maintenance of appellee and the parties' minor child and therefore were not subject to discharge in bankruptcy. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the debts in question did not arise solely from the division of martial assets, but were rather in the nature of support or alimony and therefore were not dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings.

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that the marital debts at issue were in the nature of support or alimony not merely the division of marital assets and therefore were not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1702 relates to "marriage during existence of former marriage."  The general rule states, 

If a married person, during the lifetime of the other person with whom the marriage is in force, enters into a subsequent marriage pursuant to the requirements of this part and the parties to the marriage live together thereafter as husband and wife, and the subsequent marriage was entered into by one or both of the parties in good faith in the full belief that the former spouse was dead or that the former marriage has been annulled or terminated by a divorce, or without knowledge of the former marriage, they shall, after the impediment to their marriage has been removed by the death of the other party to the former marriage or by annulment or divorce, if they continue to live together as husband and wife in good faith on the part of one of them, be held to have been legally married from and immediately after the date of death or the date of the decree of annulment or divorce.  

The burden remains on the party and their Bucks County divorce lawyers supporting the validity of the second marriage to produce facts that will shift the burden of proof back to the party supporting the validity of the first marriage.  Because Pennsylvania law is not entirely clear about which party has the burden of proving the termination of the first marriage, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that in the absence of an entirely mechanical rule, a trial court should weigh one presumption against the other in light of the social value of each party's conduct.  In other words, Pennsylvania law has not adopted the inflexible application of the first presumption, which would require, without exception, that the termination of the first marriage be shown conclusively before the second marriage can be recognized.  Instead, a trial court can consider equitable principles in balancing the conflicting presumptions.  

Here's the standard for service of a custody matter, including a petition to modify:

Service is the delivery of court papers to a plaintiff or a defendant. Court papers may be served by mail, but you must follow very specific rules. Court papers may be served by personal service - handing a copy of the paper to the other party – but not by you or a person related to you. Proof of Service, called Affidavit of Service or Certificate of Service, is a form you must file with the court explaining how court papers were delivered to the other party. A court will not act on your case unless you have served the court papers and filed proof that you followed Rules of Court.

Pa. R.C.P. 1930.4 states the options for service of original process, the custody or divorce complaint. Pa. R.C.P. 440 states the options for service of legal papers other than original process.

Please use the appropriate affidavit of service form for the mode of service you will use.  If you plan to serve copies of your legal papers by mail, please use form 1.  If you use hand deliver service, perhaps by a deputy sheriff or someone else not you or related to you, use form 2.  If your situation requires you to use other means of service different from original process, use form 4.  You will need to consult with the Pennsylvania Rules of Court regarding service in your type of case to ensure you are properly following the rules.

This handy document from the Bucks County Prothonotary will also help.  

But, what is a person is to do if the mother/father of their child is in prison?  If the person is in the Bucks County Correctional Facility, you will have to get special service from the Bucks County Sheriffs.  Your Bucks County divorce lawyer should know that you can't just mail it to the prisoner.  Even though, they are literally "captive", it doesn't matter.  You have to have special service.  Make sure to include the custody petition, order, and Criminal Record/Abuse History Verification in your service.  The cost (as of January 2016) is $79.  

In S.C. v. J.C., the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s opinion that where primary physical custody was switched from mother to father, and mother/father remained at their respective addresses, this change in physical custody did not qualify as a relocation even though mother and father resided 51 miles apart from each other.

Mother appealed the trial court’s decision that awarded primary physical custody to father based on the court’s application of the factors to determine custody set forth in 23 Pa. C.S. §5328(a).  Mother believed that because mother and father resided 51 miles apart from each other that the court should have applied the factors to determine a relocation as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.§5337(h).

The Superior Court rejected mother’s argument and your Bucks County divorce lawyer should be aware of this important decision.  The court based their opinion on the fact that neither mother nor father was seeking to relocate from their current addresses, nor did either party intend to relocate.  Further, the court noted that father and mother had been exercising their custodial rights at their respective addresses since September 2013.  Where the change in primary custodian was not going to impair either parties custodial rights based on location the court refused to apply the relocation factors.

Bucks County Child Support

Both custodial and non custodial parents have a financial responsibility to support their children in a Bucks County support case.

Procedure for Child Support

Support in a Bucks County divorce is determined by guidelines issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The income of BOTH parents and the total number of children involved are the determining factors in deciding the basic support amount needed.  Only net income is considered; taxes and medical insurance for children, social security deductions, alimony , union dues and employer required retirement plan payments are excluded.

Child support in Bucks County is payable until the age of 18.  However, if the child remains in high school beyond the age of 18, then child support is due until the child’s graduation.

Bucks County Child Custody

This question is tremendously complicated.  Many Bucks County divorce attorneys have war stories about custody and the battles in the courtroom.  

The overriding legal basis the courts in Pennsylvania, including Bucks County, consider is: What is in the best interests of the child?  The child can request that one parent be given custody.  However, the courts will consider the age and maturity of the child making the request.  If a child is deemed too young or immature and only wants to live with the parent who gives them videogames and candy, that may not be in their best interest.  If, however, the child articulates issues important to him or her (i.e. they like the Bucks County school district they are in), the judge will take that into consideration.

Other Issues for Child Custody

The request is only one of many factors to be considered. The stability of the Bucks County parent and willingness to work amicably with the other parent are also considered. Abuse or the possibility of putting the child in harm’s way, educational concerns, employment conditions of the parents and their financial capabilities, and a desire to keep siblings together are also some of the factors.   Again, the main consideration is what the court deems is in the best interest of the child.  The court will review all aspects of the child’s situation and make a decision based on what it considers best overall for the child.

A parent can file for custody if the child has lived in Pennsylvania for at least six consecutive months.  If the child has lived in Bucks County, the custody petition would be filed through the Bucks County Domestic Relations office.There are some exceptions to filing for custody, such as if the child is less than six months of age or if the child was removed from the state due to an extreme emergency such as abuse.  A parent, through their Bucks County divorce lawyer, initially files for temporary custody which means he/she is awarded custody during the time awaiting for the formal court hearing.