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.