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.