PA Supreme Court & PA Superior Court Family Law Opinions - January 2006 to present

PA Custody Law Appellate Decisions including Grandparents' & Other Third Party Rights

In the J.F. vs. D.B. case, the Superior Court held that the gestational carrier who had given birth to triplets conceived by use of an egg donor's eggs inseminated by the biological father's sperm was entitled to retain child support payments ordered to be paid by the biological father while the gestational carrier and biological father litigated the custody issues involving the children.  In this case, the Court held that the children were the persons entitled to the support from their biological parent and that the payments were not made as a benefit to the gestational carrier.  In an earlier decision, the Superior Court held that the gestational carrier did not have a right to pursue custody rights of the minor children and that the biological father would be entitled to custody.

Collins v. Collins - PA custody relocation case  under Gruber relocation analysis.  Mother sought to relocate with the minor children to Utah to live with her parents, work part-time, and pursue a college education.  After a hearing, Father, who had serious financial difficulties,  had not held a full-time job for a prolonged period of time, and risked losing the marital home was awarded primary custody although trial court found mother had been primary caregiver prior to separation and court found children were more closely bonded with mother.  PA Superior Court reversed family court and permitted mother to move out of state with the minor children to her parents' residence in Utah.

Fuehrer v. Fuehrer - PA custody relocation case  under Gruber relocation analysis.  Mother who was married to father at time of "meeting" a man from the Netherlands via the internet sought to relocate from PA with parties' two minor children to Netherlands were mother would be financially dependent upon the boyfriend.  PA Superior Court reversed PA trial court's order permitting mother to relocate and directed that mother should maintain custody, but must exercise it in Pennsylvania.  Mother was denied the right to move out of the country with the children.

Hiller v. Fausey - PA Supreme Court held that the PA Grandparent Visitation Statutes which allow grandparents to seek partial custody or visitation with their minor grandchildren are constitutional and rejected the argument that the PA Grandparent Visitation Statute violates the custodial parent's Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.  The PA Supreme Court held the PA Grandparent Visitation statute constitutional even after consideration of a fit parent's rights regarding the care, custody, and control of their minor children.  PA Supreme Court refuses to find the statute violates the US Constitution as in the Troxel v. Grandville case from Washington state.

JF v. DB - PA Superior Court refused to comment on validity of surrogacy contracts.  Fetus  was conceived through use of sperm donated by biological father that was used to artificially inseminate eggs donated by an egg donor.  The PA appellate court determined that the gestational carrier of fetus lacked standing to challenge biological father's custody of triplets and also lacked standing to seek termination of the parental rights of the egg donor.

Lawrence v. Bordner - PA Appellate Court ruled that a Protection from Abuse (PFA)  order may temporarily suspend a previously entered custody order if necessary to prevent abuse.

Little-Stepp v. Cancilla and Little-Stepp - Father's adoptive mother may seek partial custody or visitation of minor grandchild under PA Grandparent Visitation statutes .

Saintz v. Rinker - Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed family court's order transferring primary custody of child from mother to father when child expressed a desire to live with father and felt emotionally burdened by helping to raise his half-siblings.  Court ordered that separation of child from his half-siblings was appropriate since the children had the same partial custody schedules with mother on her weekends of custody.

Masser v. Miller -  Mother's request to relocate with 14 year old minor child to an adjoining county less than 45 minutes from her current residence was denied when it was found that Mother would benefit from a shorter commute to work but that the child would suffer less time with her father who had exercised substantial partial custody and his extended family. The trial court's decision to increase father's custody time without a pending request to do so was also found proper given the testimony that the parties had operated under an informal agreement providing father with additional time. Masser v Miller, 2006 Pa. Super. 334

Ramer v. Ramer - A parent who has been convicted of certain specified crimes involving sexual acts or children is required to be evaluated and counseled by a mental health professional with qualified experience in the type of crime committed by the parent and for the court to hear testimony regarding the evaluation and counseling prior to the offending parent being granted any type of custody including partial custody or visitation. Ramer v Ramer, 2006 Pa. Super. 259

Dietrich v. Dietrich - The PA Superior Court remanded case back to trial court when trial court failed to conduct custody trial within 180 days of the filing of the custody complaint. Dietrich v Dietrich, 2007 Pa. Super. 112

Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob - The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that custody of the minor children were properly awarded to the lesbian partner that was the biological parent of the children as there is a presumption in favor of the biological parent over a third party who stands in loco parentis (acting like a parent) to the children. The Court further held that the sperm donor of 2 of the children who exercised partial custody of the children is obligated for child support in addition to the lesbian couple who raised the children as he remains the children's biological parent and has not terminated his parental rights. Jacob v Shultz-Jacob, 2007 Pa. Super.

Morgan v. Weiser - Mother and father's parental rights were terminated and the maternal grandparents became the children's adoptive parents. After the grandparents' adoption, the grandparents permitted father some minimal contact with the children. The court held that father no longer had standing to seek custody of the children since his rights were terminated and he did not stand in loco parentis any longer to the children. Morgan v Weiser, 2007 Pa. Super. 128

In the Interest of B.S. - On a case argued by Attorney Lisa Marie Vari, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the paternal grandparent who was acting as a temporary kinship care provider for her grandson had the right to notice of any proceedings and any opportunity to be heard, but did not have standing to participate in the child's dependency proceedings or to call witnesses or present evidence. In the Interest of: B.S., Appeal of: D.D., 2007 Pa. Super. 297

Helsel v. Puricelli - Grandfather appeals the trial court's order finding that he did not have standing to seek visitation or partial custody with his grandchild. Grandfather argues that because the child's parents had been separated for more than 6 months, he should be granted standing even though the parents reconciled prior to the time his custody complaint was filed with the court. The Superior Court held that pursuant to the Grandparent Visitation Act, the minor grandchild's parents must be currently separated for at least 6 months, the grandchild's parents must be divorced, the children's parents must have never married and don't live together, a parent must be deceased, or the grandchild must have lived with the grandparent for at least 12 months for a grandparent to have standing to file the complaint. Helsel v Puricelli, 2007 Pa. Super. 144

Gates v. Gates - The parties' prenuptial (antenuptial) agreement excluded husband's business valued at $1 million dollars and any increase in value. Husband also inherited $2 million from his mother. Husband was awarded primary physical custody of the parties' minor child arguing in the parties' custody case that wife was mentally unstable. The Superior Court upheld an award to wife of alimony in the amount of $4,000 per month and a total of $27,000 in counsel fees reasoning that Husband's argument of wife's instability in the custody case justified finding her inability to work in the alimony matter. Gates v Gates, 2007 Pa. Super. 281

Klos v. Klos - Father resided in Florida and had custody of 3 of the parties' 5 minor children. Father sought custody of the 2 remaining children and requested permission to relocate them to Florida as well. The Superior Court affirmed the grant of primary physical custody to Father and permission for relocation of the children to Florida. The Court discussed the best interests analysis as well as the test for relocation found in the Gruber v. Gruber case. The test includes an analysis of: (1) the potential advantages of the proposed move and the likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent; (2) the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and noncustodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it; and (3) the availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent. Klos v Klos, 2007 Pa. Super. 496

Hogrelius v. Martin - Trial court's grant of mother's request to relocate from Pennsylvania to Virginia was affirmed by Superior Court when the mother sought to relocate to reside with her new husband whose income afforded mother the opportunity to not work and provided the mother and the child a greater standard of living. In addressing the third prong of the Gruber relocation analysis, the Superior Court held that the trial court's determination is not whether the alternative schedule would maintain the current level of the non-custodial parent's interaction with the children, but rather whether the substitute arrangements will foster adequately an ongoing relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children. Hogrelius v. Martin, 2008 PA Super 111

Ottolini v. Barrett - The Superior Court held that all interviews of children in child custody litigation must be done with a court reporter present and in the presence of counsel who shall be afforded an opportunity to question the children under the court's supervision. The Superior Court further held that it was an error for the trial court to consider the report of an expert who the court directed to perform a custody evaluation without the expert appearing for the purpose of cross-examination. Ottolini v. Barrett, 2008 PA Super 154

N.H.M. v. P.O.T. - The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that transfer of primary custody of child from mother in Pennsylvania to father in California was appropriate when child had suffered emotional harm as result of sexual abuse in mother's home. The fact that the child's interview by the judge was not transcribed was held to be harmless error since testimony from other witnesses including mother confirmed the sexual contact between the child and another child living in the residence. N.H.M.v. P.O.T , 2008 PA Super 90

A.J.B.v. M.P.B. - The PA Superior Court found that the trial court committed an error when it qualified an individual holding a doctorate degree in mass communications as an expert and allowed her to testify regarding the impact on the brain of watching pornography. The Superior Court held that the expert could not testify as to the impact of father watching pornography and any consequences it might have on his child rearing and thus the expert's information was irrelevant to the custody determination and should have be excluded from trial. A.J.B.v. M.P.B., 2008 PA Super 39

Billhime v. Billhime - The Superior Court held that where minor children had relocated to Florida, Pennsylvania did not maintain a significant connection to the children and that jurisdiction to hear a modification of the existing PA custody order should have been transferred to Florida for a determination. Billhime v. Billhime, 2008 PA Super 121

Hopkins v. Byes - The PA Superior Court held that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by imposing $500 attorney's fees as a sanction for the mother's failure to abide by a custody order, without first ascertaining mother's ability to pay the sanction. Hopkins v. Byes, 2008 PA Super 172

PA Appellate Cases involving Child Support, Spousal Support, APL, and Alimony

Berry v. Berry - Marital assets are not considered income for PA support purposes under PA Child Support Guidelines ; severance pay equals income for calculation of PA child support order.

Chapman-Rolle v. Rolle   - In high income - Melzer cases, custodial parent will be awarded presumptive minimum of child support based upon the PA Support Guidelines  unless custodial parent can prove (through documentation or testimony )that the reasonable needs of the children are greater than the presumptive minimum.  In accessing the children's reasonable needs, the custodial parent must separate the expenses for the children from those of the custodial parent. 

Chen v. Chen  - PA Supreme Court ruled that a child can not seek to intervene in the parents' legal matters to attempt to enforce the terms of the parents' agreement regarding PA child support as set forth in their marriage or property settlement agreement.

Gibbons v. Kugle - Pennsylvania Superior Court found that father who was ordered to pay parochial school tuition for child who had never previously attended private school was appropriate when family court found child would benefit from private school due to fighting and other problems in child's previous public school and private school costs are considered within the standard of living or station in life of family of the family based upon economic factors prior to the parties' separation. 

Godfrey v. Godfrey  - A defendant who has been found to be in willful noncompliance of a PA support obligation  and found in civil contempt of the support order may be sentenced to jail for up to 6 months, given a fine of up to $1,000, or up to 1 year probation; however, court must set a purge condition allowing defendant to be released from jail.  Trial court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has the present ability to comply with purge condition.  Appellate court also held that both parties in a support action must supply court with any changes in address within 7 days or else notice of hearings sent to prior address will not excuse failure to appear at hearing.

Howland v. Howland   - Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed family court's order directing father to pay as additional child support a percentage of minor children's unreimbursed medical costs  for out of state residential treatment programs that mother choose to send children to when appropriate evidence was not presented showing mother had inquired into programs that may have been available in Pennsylvania and/or covered by medical insurance and imposing majority of costs upon father in addition to child support and alimony obligations would be unreasonable and confiscatory.

Saunders v. Saunders  - PA Superior Court upheld family court's order denying father's request for child support  pursuant to the Colonna v. Colonna case which held that the court may award child support to the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has a significantly greater income and support to the non-custodial parent is necessary to provide adequate housing and amenities for the children while in the non-custodial parent's care.

Grigoruk v. Grigoruk - The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that it was proper to increase the amount of child support paid by the father where the mother's income decreased significantly when she was fired from her former job for willful misconduct. It was undisputed by the father that the mother's job loss was not due to her effort to avoid her support obligation and the Superior Court found that the mother had conducted an adequate job search and accepted a lower paying position to mitigate her decrease in earnings. Grigoruk v. Grigoruk, 2006 Pa. Super. 334.

Ney v. Ney - The trial court was found to have committed an error when the judge performed an internet search of jobs in father's field of employment and relied on the results in accessing the credibility of father in testifying at his support hearing that his income had decreased and no jobs were available in his area at his former wages. Ney v Ney, 2007 Pa. Super. 38

Bradford County CYS v. Moon - The PA Superior Court affirmed an order directing mother to pay one-half of the costs for the placement for her son by Children and Youth Services in a foster setting. Bradford County Children and Youth Services v Moon, 2007 Pa. Super. 127

N.C. v. M.H. - Wife who had affair during marriage and gave birth to a child that was raised by wife and her husband for 10 years was not permitted to obtain child support from her husband when he was not the biological father, wife hid her affair from her husband, and the parties were divorcing. The Superior Court found that neither the presumption of paternity of a child born during the marriage nor paternity by estoppel should be applied in this case. N.C. v M.H., 2007 Pa. Super. 123

Kraisinger v. Kraisinger - The parties entered into a marriage settlement agreement that provided that husband would make the payments for the mortgage on wife's residence. In addition, husband would pay $500 per month per child for child support. The agreement also contained a clause indicating that if wife filed to modify her child support, she would be required to pay husband's counsel fees. Wife filed for modification of child support. Husband argued that her child support should not be modified given he was paying both the mortgage and child support. The Superior Court held that although one parent cannot bargain away a child's right to adequate support from the other, an agreement in which one parent releases the other from the duty of support will be enforced so long as it is fair and reasonable, was made without fraud or coercion, and does not prejudice the welfare of the children involved. Here the Court found Husband's mortgage payments to be his obligation under equitable distribution and not support. Therefore, the Court found that wife was entitled to seek modification of support and that the provision for attorney's fees was unenforceable. Kraisinger v Kraisinger, 2007 Pa. Super. 197

Nash v. Kerbster - Under recent changes to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the PA Superior Court held that an incarcerated parent is entitled to a hearing on whether a modification of child support is justified given the parent's incarceration and a lack of verifiable income or assets. Nash v Kerbster, 2007 Pa. Super. 262

Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli - This case involved an analysis of child support under the high income analysis (greater than $20,000 net per month) pursuant to the case of Melzer v. Witsberger. The Superior Court held that when the parents are sharing custody, in a high income support case the parents' individual household expenses for the children while in their care are already reduced and reflected on the parties' household budget and that it would be inappropriate to apply the deviation pursuant to the PA Child Support Guidelines formula for shared custody cases. The case sets forth a wonderful analysis of the presumptive minimum formula in high income child support cases as well as how the reasonable needs of the parents and children is calculated, and a support order is fashioned by the court. Bulgarelli v Bulgarelli, 2007 Pa. Super. 295.

Gates v. Gates - The parties' prenuptial (antenuptial) agreement excluded husband's business valued at $1 million dollars and any increase in value. Husband also inherited $2 million from his mother. Husband was awarded primary physical custody of the parties' minor child arguing in the parties' custody case that wife was mentally unstable. The Superior Court upheld an award to wife of alimony in the amount of $4,000 per month and a total of $27,000 in counsel fees reasoning that Husband's argument of wife's instability in the custody case justified finding her inability to work in the alimony matter. Gates v Gates, 2007 Pa. Super. 281

Glover v. Severino, Sr. - The Superior Court held that in cases where a man has held himself out as the father of a child may nevertheless be entitled to paternity testing and the right to challenge parentage of a child when evidence exists that the mother may have committed fraud and not informed the alleged father that she had other sexual relations that may have resulted in the pregnancy.

R.C. V. J.S. - The Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that it is improper to suspend child support orders during periods of transitory in-patient treatment outside the home given that the custodial parent still must maintain an appropriate residence in anticipation of the child's eventual return. While this case applied to a temporary hospitalization, the case also cited examples such as when the minor child is in temporary placement due to a juvenile court order removing the child from the home. R.C. V. J.S., 2008 PA Super 219

Wieland v. Wieland v. Dillon, Jr. - The mother of the child was married, but separated from her husband when the child was born. The mother named her then boyfriend as the father on the birth certificate and allowed the boyfriend to raise the child for the next several years. After the relationship with the boyfriend ended, the mother filed a complaint for support against her former husband without the former boyfriend's knowledge, and paternity testing revealed that the former husband was the child's biological father. The former boyfriend and ex-husband both sought to have the former boyfriend declared the legal father under a paternity by estoppel argument. The court ruled that since the mother had informed the child of the DNA results, paternity by estoppel would not be applied and the biological father would be forced to pay support. The Superior Court however noted that its decision would not impact any potential child custody litigation. Wieland v. Wieland v. Dillon, Jr. 2008 PA Super 98

Style v. Shaub - Father of child over age 18 not liable to support child who has history of ADHD and other problems when testimony presented that adult child was capable of working at least minimum wage job. Style v. Shaub, 2008 PA Super 184

Sirio v. Sirio - The PA Superior Court reviewed case involving high-income Melzer analysis for child support. PA Superior Court held that the Hearing Officer should have considered the mother's counsel fee request 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351 which allows awarded of counsel fees to the plaintiff in a support action. The award of counsel fees because of Father's obdurate, vexatious or dilatory behavior pursuant to section 2503 does not prevent an award of additional counsel fees under section 4351. Sirio v. Sirio, 2008 PA Super 133

Krebs v. Krebs - The Superior Court held that mother was entitled to retroactive modification of the child support order beyond the period that she had a petition for modification filed because father failed in his affirmative duty to report to the court his increase in earnings. The Court also explained that an award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff in a support action may be appropriate in certain circumstances and that the court should consider (1) whether the obligor's unreasonable or obstreperous conduct impeded the determination of an appropriate support order; (2) whether the obligor mounted a fair and reasonable defense in a child support order; (3) whether the obligor's failure to fulfill his moral and financial obligation to support his children required legal action to force him to accept his responsibilities; and (4) whether the financial positions and financial needs of the parties are disparate. Krebs v. Krebs, 2008 PA Super 29

PA Appellate Cases involving Paternity

Gebler v. Gatti and Sisson  - PA appellate court held that doctrine of presumption of paternity  is not applicable for children born out of wedlock since there is no intact marriage to protect.  Doctrine of paternity by estoppel whereby a parent cannot deny the parentage of a child that they have held out to be their own cannot be applied to hold alleged father to a support obligation when mother of child misrepresented facts to alleged father and claimed that he was the only man she had sexual relations with during time of conception.  Even when alleged father held child out to be his own, if alleged father discontinues relationship with child after learning of misrepresentation, facts may preclude application of paternity by estoppel doctrine thereby terminating alleged father's child support obligation and rights regarding visitation or custody.

JF v. DB - PA Superior Court refused to comment on validity of surrogacy contracts.  Fetus  was conceived through use of sperm donated by father that was used to artificially inseminate eggs donated by an egg donor.  The appellate court determined that the gestational carrier of fetus lacked standing to challenge biological father's custody of triplets and also lacked standing to seek termination of the parental rights of the egg donor.

Moyer v. Gresh and Gresh  - Mother was pregnant when she met what would become her future husband.  At the time when the child was born, mother was married to her husband.  Her husband supported the child emotionally and financially.  The PA Superior Court held that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel  applied as the husband had always held the child out to be his own and that the true biological father could not file a custody complaint and seek custody rights as he was aware of husband's role in child's life.

N.C. v. M.H. - Wife who had affair during marriage and gave birth to a child that was raised by wife and her husband for 10 years was not permitted to obtain child support from her husband when he was not the biological father, wife hid her affair from her husband, and the parties were divorcing. The Superior Court found that neither the presumption of paternity of a child born during the marriage nor paternity by estoppel should be applied in this case. N.C. v M.H., 2007 Pa. Super. 123

Glover v. Severino, Sr. - The Superior Court held that in cases where a man has held himself out as the father of a child may nevertheless be entitled to paternity testing and the right to challenge parentage of a child when evidence exists that the mother may have committed fraud and not informed the alleged father that she had other sexual relations that may have resulted in the pregnancy. 

Wieland v. Wieland v. Dillon, Jr. - The mother of the child was married, but separated from her husband when the child was born. The mother named her then boyfriend as the father on the birth certificate and allowed the boyfriend to raise the child for the next several years. After the relationship with the boyfriend ended, the mother filed a complaint for support against her former husband without the former boyfriend's knowledge, and paternity testing revealed that the former husband was the child's biological father. The former boyfriend and ex-husband both sought to have the former boyfriend declared the legal father under a paternity by estoppel argument. The court ruled that since the mother had informed the child of the DNA results, paternity by estoppel would not be applied and the biological father would be forced to pay support. The Superior Court however noted that its decision would not impact any potential child custody litigation. Wieland v. Wieland v. Dillon, Jr. 2008 PA Super 98

In Re: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J., - Termination of parental rights case involving biological father who did not come forward to claim his paternity until after child was already dependent and who did not seek to establish relationship with child even after paternity test confirmed his parentage. In Re: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J., 2008 PA Super 55

B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K. - Biological father's custody case dismissed when he had affair with mother while she was married and knew that mother's husband believed and acted as if he was the true father of the minor child. Fact that the mother and her husband were now divorced did not allow biological father to assert a fraud allegation to prevent paternity by estoppel being used to benefit of mother's husband. Court found no fraud against biological father since he knew of mother's deceit to her husband and allowed it to continue. B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K., 2008 PA Super 164

Lebanon County CYS v. Wagner - County child welfare agency may be estopped from seeking paternity testing against alleged biological father when mother named her former husband as biological parent on birth certificate and allowed former husband to act as parent to child. Lebanon County CYS v. Wagner, 2008 PA Super 102

PA Appellate Cases involving Divorce

Taber v. Taber - In the case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that under recently enacted statutes, a posthumous divorce decree (a divorce decree entered after the death of a spouse) would be vacated as having been inappropriately entered by the court; however, the trial court's order for equitable distribution that had been entered prior to the death of the husband would be enforceable against the wife as the husband had filed a Complaint in Divorce and the issue of equitable distribution had been fully litigated prior to the husband's death. The Court further held that the wife would not be entitled to claim an inheritance or other rights under the husband's will or the Estates and Probate Code, but instead her rights would be determined under the equitable distribution order.

Bonawits v. Bonawits - PA Superior Court discusses rules regarding entry of bifurcated divorce decrees allowing entry of decree prior to division of marital assets and debts in the equitable distribution process..

Danz v. Danz - The PA Superior Court reiterates that Rule 1920.2(b) requires a trial court to ensure the record establishes venue is proper-either by residence, written agreement, or tacit agreement through participation- before directing entrance of a divorce decree. The Court overturns a decree entered when the parties did not live in the county where the divorce complaint was filed and the wife did not actively participate in any of the proceedings. Danz v. Danz, 2008 PA Super 70

PA Appellate Cases involving Equitable Distribution

Taber v. Taber - In the case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that under recently enacted statutes, a posthumous divorce decree (a divorce decree entered after the death of a spouse) would be vacated as having been inappropriately entered by the court; however, the trial court's order for equitable distribution that had been entered prior to the death of the husband would be enforceable against the wife as the husband had filed a Complaint in Divorce and the issue of equitable distribution had been fully litigated prior to the husband's death. The Court further held that the wife would not be entitled to claim an inheritance or other rights under the husband's will or the Estates and Probate Code, but instead her rights would be determined under the equitable distribution order.

Bonawits v. Bonawits - PA Superior Court discusses rules regarding entry of bifurcated divorce decrees allowing entry of decree prior to division of marital assets and debts.

Johnson v. Johnson - PA Superior Court ruled that former wife's award of equitable distribution  could not be satisfied through proceeds from sale of ex-husband's home owned as tenants by the entireties with his current wife nor from jointly titled investments owned by the ex-husband and his current wife. 

Rimel v. Rimel - The PA Superior Court held that as part of equitable distribution, the trial court is required to apply a Social Security offset of the value of husband's Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension which would consider the fact that husband will not be entitled to Social Security benefits due to his federal government employment. Rimel v. Rimel, 2006 Pa. Super 356

Busse v. Busse - Wife was properly awarded counsel fees in conjunction with her claim for alimony pendente lite (APL) given the discrepancy of the parties' incomes and husband's bad faith in the litigation. Matters of credibility are determined by the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless no facts appear to justify the court's finding. The trial court properly used the date of separation for valuing the parties' business where there were allegations that husband had dissipated the value of the business asset after the parties' separation. Busse v Busse, 2007 Pa. Super. 100

Kraisinger v. Kraisinger - The parties entered into a marriage settlement agreement that provided that husband would make the payments for the mortgage on wife's residence. In addition, the agreement provided that husband would pay $500 per month per child for child support. The agreement also contained a clause indicating that if wife filed to modify her child support, she would be required to pay husband's counsel fees. Wife filed for modification of child support. Husband argued that her child support should not be modified given he was paying both the mortgage and child support. The Superior Court held that although one parent cannot bargain away a child's right to adequate support from the other, an agreement in which one parent releases the other from the duty of support will be enforced so long as it is fair and reasonable, was made without fraud or coercion, and does not prejudice the welfare of the children involved. Here the Court found Husband's mortgage payments to be his obligation under equitable distribution and not support. Therefore, the Court found that wife was entitled to seek modification of support and that the provision for attorney's fees was unenforceable. Kraisinger v Kraisinger, 2007 Pa. Super. 197

PA Superior and Supreme Court cases involving Prenuptial (Antenuptial), Postnuptial, and Marriage Settlement Agreements

Stackhouse v. Zaretsky - Pennsylvania Superior Court discusses validity of antenuptial agreement and postnuptial agreements  and the impact upon husband and wife's ante nuptial and post nuptial agreements.

Crispo v. Crispo - Postnuptial agreements or marriage settlement agreements are continuing contract where the duties of the parties are ongoing and the statute of limitations generally does not run. Crispo v. Crispo, 2006 Pa. Super 267.

Kraisinger v. Kraisinger - The parties entered into a marriage settlement agreement that provided that husband would make the payments for the mortgage on wife's residence. In addition, the agreement provided that husband would pay $500 per month per child for child support. The agreement also contained a clause indicating that if wife filed to modify her child support, she would be required to pay husband's counsel fees. Wife filed for modification of child support. Husband argued that her child support should not be modified given he was paying both the mortgage and child support. The Superior Court held that although one parent cannot bargain away a child's right to adequate support from the other, an agreement in which one parent releases the other from the duty of support will be enforced so long as it is fair and reasonable, was made without fraud or coercion, and does not prejudice the welfare of the children involved. Here the Court found Husband's mortgage payments to be his obligation under equitable distribution and not support. Therefore, the Court found that wife was entitled to seek modification of support and that the provision for attorney's fees was unenforceable. Kraisinger v Kraisinger, 2007 Pa. Super. 197

Gates v. Gates - The parties' prenuptial (antenuptial) agreement excluded husband's business valued at $1 million dollars and any increase in value. Husband also inherited $2 million from his mother. Husband was awarded primary physical custody of the parties' minor child arguing in the parties' custody case that wife was mentally unstable. The Superior Court upheld an award to wife of alimony in the amount of $4,000 per month and a total of $27,000 in counsel fees reasoning that Husband's argument of wife's instability in the custody case justified finding her inability to work in the alimony matter. Gates v Gates, 2007 Pa. Super. 281

Annechino v. Joire - Wife claimed that since the parties' marriage settlement agreement was not incorporated into the parties' Divorce Decree and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the trial court did not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and the husband's only remedy is a separate civil action in equity. The Superior Court held that section 3105(a) of the Divorce Code controls which permits any agreement entered related to the divorce action to be enforced by the family courts. Annechino v. Joire, 2008 PA Super 50

PA Appellate Cases involving Protection from Abuse

Lawrence v. Bordner - PA Appellate Court ruled that a Protection from Abuse (PFA)  order may temporarily suspend a previously entered custody order if necessary to prevent abuse.

McCance v. McCance - Those persons entitled to file Protection from Abuse (PFA) complaints  against their alleged abusers include persons who are family or household members including spouses, former spouses, persons living as spouses, parents and children, others persons related by blood or marriage, current or former sexual or intimate partners, and those who share biological parenthood.

Takosky v. Henning - PA Superior Court dismissed appeal of family court finding defendant in contempt of Protection from Abuse order when family court did not enter any sanctions or term of imprisonment against defendant.

Mescanti v. Mescanti - The PA Superior Court affirmed the entry of a Protection from Abuse Order when husband engaged in a repeated pattern of harassing and threatening the wife even though no physical abuse had taken place. Mescanti v. Mescanti, 2008 PA Super 201

B.T.W., On Behalf of T.L., A Minor v. P.J.L. - The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court's jurisdiction over the custodian of the minor child, a resident of Maryland, and over the subject matter of the protection from abuse (PFA) action is conferred by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482, despite commission of the abusive acts in a state other than Pennsylvania, because the controlling custody order is from Pennsylvania and because if abuse occurred a change of custody could be considered pursuant to the PFA statute. B.T.W., On Behalf of T.L., A Minor v. P.J.L , 2008 PA Super 199

PA Appellate Cases involving Contempt, Enforcement, Modification and Appeals

Costlow v. Costlow - Husband appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court was dismissed when he failed to file his appeal within 30 days of the final order. Costlow v Costlow, 2006 Pa. Super 360.

Getty v. Getty  - Husband's appeal of wife's award of 65% of his pension was dismissed when husband filed and was granted a Motion for Reconsideration and husband failed to file his appeal within 30 days after reconsideration by the trial court was granted. Getty v. Getty, 2007 Pa. Super. 39

Dalrymple v. Kilishek - The trial court properly awarded attorney fees against the husband for obdurate and vexatious behavior in failing to provide documents to wife's counsel that were requested as part of equitable distribution of the marital assets. Dalrymple v Kilishek, 2007 Pa. Super. 83

Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin - The Pennsylvania Superior Court found father's appeal to be without merit and remanded the case to the trial court for the trial court to impose attorney's fees against father. Robinson-Austin v Robinson-Austin, 2007 Pa. Super. 98

Busse v. Busse - Wife was properly awarded counsel fees in conjunction with her claim for alimony pendente lite (APL) given the discrepancy of the parties' incomes and husband's bad faith in the litigation. Matters of credibility are determined by the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless no facts appear to justify the court's finding. The trial court properly used the date of separation for valuing the parties' business where there were allegations that husband had dissipated the value of the business asset after the parties' separation. Busse v Busse, 2007 Pa. Super. 100

Prol v. Prol - Wife appeals the order which granted the petition for special relief of Husband and ordered the forfeiture of Wife's interest in Husband's Kimberly-Clark pension for Wife's counsel's failure to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the pension. The Superior Court held that Wife substantially complied with the court's directive and forfeiture of Wife's interest would not be equitable or fair. Prol v Prol, 2007 Pa. Super. 313

Sirio v. Sirio - The PA Superior Court reviewed case involving high-income Melzer analysis for child support. PA Superior Court held that the Hearing Officer should have considered the mother's counsel fee request 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351 which allows awarded of counsel fees to the plaintiff in a support action. The award of counsel fees because of Father's obdurate, vexatious or dilatory behavior pursuant to section 2503 does not prevent an award of additional counsel fees under section 4351. Sirio v. Sirio, 2008 PA Super 133

Krebs v. Krebs - The Superior Court held that mother was entitled to retroactive modification of the child support order beyond the period that she had a petition for modification filed because father failed in his affirmative duty to report to the court his increase in earnings. The Court also explained that an award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff in a support action may be appropriate in certain circumstances and that the court should consider (1) whether the obligor's unreasonable or obstreperous conduct impeded the determination of an appropriate support order; (2) whether the obligor mounted a fair and reasonable defense in a child support order; (3) whether the obligor's failure to fulfill his moral and financial obligation to support his children required legal action to force him to accept his responsibilities; and (4) whether the financial positions and financial needs of the parties are disparate. Krebs v. Krebs, 2008 PA Super 29

Faust v. Walker - The PA Superior Court held that the domestic relations section is granted the power to issue orders to secure assets to satisfy support obligations and arrearages by intercepting or seizing judgments or settlements. Faust v. Walker, 2008 PA Super 38

Annechino v. Joire - Wife claimed that since the parties' marriage settlement agreement was not incorporated into the parties' Divorce Decree and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the trial court did not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and the husband's only remedy is a separate civil action in equity. The Superior Court held that section 3105(a) of the Divorce Code controls which permits any agreement entered related to the divorce action to be enforced by the family courts. Annechino v. Joire, 2008 PA Super 50

Hopkins v. Byes - The PA Superior Court held that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by imposing $500 attorney's fees as a sanction for the mother's failure to abide by a custody order, without first ascertaining mother's ability to pay the sanction. Hopkins v. Byes, 2008 PA Super 172

PA Superior and Supreme Court cases involving Adoption

Morgan v. Weiser - Mother and father's parental rights were terminated and the maternal grandparents became the children's adoptive parents. After the grandparents' adoption, the grandparents permitted father some minimal contact with the children. The court held that father no longer had standing to seek custody of the children since his rights were terminated, he did not stand in loco parentis any longer to the children, and his role was akin to that of a babysitter. Morgan v Weiser, 2007 Pa. Super. 128

Miscellaneous Decisions

Amrheim v. Amrhein - PA family courts must consider monthly living expenses of litigant seeking to waive family court costs under a low income, In Forma Pauperis (IFP) petition.

Mayer v. Garman, III - PA Supreme Court ruled that the trial court improperly joined former husband's girlfriend (who has at all times resided in Hong Kong) as a party to a contempt action  by the former wife, improperly froze assets in the girlfriend's name, and found that the trial court failed to require service of process upon the girlfriend.  The Supreme Court entered a Writ of Prohibition precluding the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over husband's girlfriend. 

Appellate Decisions regarding Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Dependency, and Termination of Parental Rights

In Re DG, Jr. - No contact provision vacated when requested by CYF  attorney after father and his attorney left the courtroom.

In Re Adoption of JEF, CJU, NGF - PA Supreme Court ruled that the CYF  Agency does not have to give its consent or approval before a family member can seek to adopt children whose parents' parental rights have been terminated.

In Re Adoption of RJS - Termination of parental rights (TPR)  case.

In Re Adoption of SEG - CYF can file a petition for termination of parental rights  prior to the court ordering a change of goal to termination of rights.

In Re CP - Termination of parental rights (TPR)  case.

In Re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights to EM, RM - Termination of parental rights (TPR)  case.

In The Interest of GT - Termination of parental rights (TPR)  case.

In The Interest of JE - Finding of delinquency  overturned when probation officer did not have probable cause to search bedroom where juvenile was sitting and Motion to Suppress Evidence should have been granted.

In The Interest of KC - Juvenile dependency case .

In The Interest of LC, II - PA Superior Court ruled that grandmother of minor child did not have standing to participate in grandchild's juvenile dependency hearing .

In The Interest of MJS - Biological father's termination of parental rights  and adoption of child by grandparents upheld after father sought to vacate adoption decree when father failed to participate in judicial proceedings seeking to advance his rights when he knew he was not named on child's birth certificate.

In The Interest of SJ - Office of Children, Youth, & Families (OCYF ) compelled to pay expenses related to dependent child's college education when child requested to remain under dependency status beyond her 18th birthday.

In The Matter of AK and LK - Goal change from reunification to termination reversed by Superior Court when mother showed she had made progress in correcting conditions that necessitated original placement.

In The Matter of EB - Finding of dependency  upheld when child indicated mother's friend made sexual advances towards her and mother chose not to believe child and did nothing to protect her.

In The Matter of IAC - Termination of parental rights (TPR ) case.

In the matter of N.C. - The PA Superior Court decided that although a parent made substantial progress towards achieving the goal of her permanency plan, the trial court properly decided to change the permanency goal to adoption because the trial court must focus on the child and determine the goal in accordance with the child's best interest and not those of his or her parents. In the matter of: N.C., 2006 Pa. Super 285.

In Re: Adoption of A.P. & A.P. - Termination of mother's parental rights upheld after children in placement for more than 12 months and grounds for their removal continue. In Re: Adoption of A.P. & A.P., Minors, 2007 Pa. Super. 80

In the Interestof D.K. - Non-relative who had raised children prior to their dependency adjudication was deemed to stand in loco parentis, or acting like a parent, and was therefore entitled to standing as a party in all dependency proceedings, permitted to testify and present evidence, and should have been appointed counsel to represent him in the juvenile court proceedings. In the Interest of: D.K, 2007 Pa. Super. 99

Bradford County CYS v. Moon - The PA Superior Court affirmed an order directing mother to pay one-half of the costs for the placement for her son by Children and Youth Services in a foster setting. Bradford County Children and Youth Services v Moon, 2007 Pa. Super. 127

Morgan v. Weiser - Mother and father's parental rights were terminated and the maternal grandparents became the children's adoptive parents. After the grandparents' adoption, the grandparents permitted father some minimal contact with the children. The court held that father no longer had standing to seek custody of the children since his rights were terminated and he did not stand in loco parentis any longer to the children. Morgan v Weiser, 2007 Pa. Super. 128

Mother's appeal of the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter was waived for failing to comply with court rules which required her to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, pursuant to PA Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). In Re: L.M., Appeal of: S.M., 2007 Pa. Super.

In re S.D.T., Jr., a minor - The PA Superior Court reiterates that Pennsylvania courts are required to engage in a two-step evaluation process before terminating parental rights. First, the conduct of the parent must be examined. The petitioner seeking termination must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies at least one of the nine statutory grounds for termination, as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a). If it is determined that this burden of proof has been met, then the trial court must next consider the second step of the process, which entails a determination of whether termination best serves the needs and welfare of the child. The needs and welfare of the child are the paramount consideration in deciding whether to terminate parental rights. The effect of severing the bond between the parent and the child is a major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis. In Re: S.D.T, Jr. a Minor, Appeal of: S.D.T., Sr., 2007 Pa. Super. 277

In the Interest of M.S.K. - Father appeals order denying his petition for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc the order terminating his parental rights to his minor child. In the Interest of: M.S.K., Minor Child Appeal of: B.F.K., Natural Father, 2007 Pa. Super.

In re: Adoption of K.J. - Mother appeals final decrees which terminated her parental rights to her minor children. In re: Adoption of: K.J., Minor Child Appeal of: C.S., Natural Mother, 2007 Pa. Super.

In the Interest of B.L.J., Jr. - Appellants, S.A.L. and C.E.L. appeal the order which sustained the preliminary objections of Appellee, T.G.H. ("Mother"), to Appellants' petition to terminate her parental rights as to B.L.J., Jr. and dismissed the termination petition. In the Interest of: B.L.J., Jr. Appeal of: S.A.L. and C.E.L., 2007 Pa. Super.

In the Interest of KZS, Appeal of CVS, mother - Termination of parental rights case when the child tested positive for cocaine at birth, remained in placement for substantial period of time, and the mother had not proven she remedied her housing or drug addiction problems.

In Re: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J., - Termination of parental rights case affirmed when biological father who did not come forward to claim his paternity until after child was already dependent and who did not seek to establish relationship with child even after paternity test confirmed his parentage. In Re: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J., 2008 PA Super 55

R.C. v. J.S. - The Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that it is improper to suspend child support orders during periods of transitory in-patient treatment outside the home given that the custodial parent still must maintain an appropriate residence in anticipation of the child's eventual return. While this case applied to a temporary hospitalization, the case also cited examples such as when the minor child is in temporary placement due to a juvenile court order removing the child from the home. R.C. v. J.S., 2008 PA Super 219

P.T. & K.T. v. M.H. - Superior Court ruled that if a juvenile dependency case is pending, any child custody litigation must be consolidated with and heard as part of the dependency proceeding since both proceedings involve an analysis of a child's best interests. P.T. & K.T. v. M.H., 2008 PA Super 155

In Re: C.T. and G.T.F., Both Minors, Appeal of C.T., Biological Father, P.T. & K.T. v. M.H. - The Superior Court affirmed termination of father's parental rights when evidence failed to prove that the children had any bond with their father. In Re: C.T. and G.T.F., Both Minors, Appeal of C.T., Biological Father, P.T. & K.T. v. M.H., 2008 PA Super 31

Pennsylvania Family Law News

Pennsylvania grandparent visitation cases

Use of court appointed psychologists in custody cases

Videoconferencing to aid in filing of PFAs

Seizure of guns in PFA cases

New database to track PFA violators

Obtaining public records in Allegheny County

PFA orders can't protect every victim

Consider financial repercussions of remarriage

Is it financially wise to be married?

Who gets the house after divorce?

Remarried Veteran's widows eligible for benefits

Dividing the dogs & cats

Surrogate mom awarded custody

Proposed shared custody amendments

Woman arrested for fleeing with child

Sperm donor obligated to pay  child support

Custodial parent may owe child support

Work out conflicts before you marry

Pennsylvania Family Law Articles

Helping Our Lawyers Help You in  Your Family Law Case

Stepping Back From Anger - Protecting Your Children During Divorce

Tax Implications of  PA Divorce and Support Orders

Application of the Presumption of Paternity and Paternity by Estoppel in Pennsylvania (PDF file)

Inheritances Not Considered Income for PA Support Purposes (PDF file)

Note: You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files.
Click here to download a fee copy of Acrobat Reader

Our Pennsylvania Family Law Offices

Our Pennsylvania divorce lawyers and staff regularly assists family law clients with family law issues in Allegheny County, Beaver County, Butler County, Washington County, and Westmoreland County.  Our attorneys accept family law cases from Armstrong County, Fayette County, Greene County, Indiana County, Lawrence County, Mercer County, Somerset County and Venango County on a case-by-case basis.   We welcome clients who reside in the Greater Pittsburgh and Butler areas and can meet with us in person as well as clients from other cities, states and countries.  Schedule an appointment with our team of PA family lawyers to assist you with your PA family law matter!

Disclaimer:

This page contains documents regarding Pennsylvania family law that have been written and/or published by various sources. The reader should not assume that the documents contained herein were written by members of the staff of the offices of Lisa Marie Vari & Associates, P.C. unless it is so indicated in the document.