Pennsylvania Child Support & Paternity Issues
Establishing Paternity in Pennsylvania and the Use of DNA Testing
In Pennsylvania, if an alleged father acknowledges paternity by his actions or in a written document, it is sometimes difficult to later challenge paternity of the minor child. However, if the alleged father and mother of a minor child were never married, and in some limited circumstances even when the parents were married prior to the birth of a child, the alleged father may have the right to request paternity testing to confirm parentage. If paternity of a child is not certain, it is best to request to have DNA testing prior to any type of acknowledgment of paternity of a minor child. See Ms. Obara's article in the "News" section for more information.
Most counties in Pennsylvania now utilize DNA testing to confirm parenthood. DNA testing may be performed by utilizing blood samples, by swabbing the interior of a person's mouth for cells, or by other methods. Once paternity is acknowledged by the alleged father or if it is established by DNA testing or otherwise, the Pennsylvania family courts will enter a child support order if the parents were never married or if they are separated or divorced.
Click here for an illustration of the DNA testing process.
PA Child Support Laws
In Pennsylvania, child support is payable until a child reaches eighteen years old or graduates from high school, whichever occurs later. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that parents cannot be forced by a court to pay for college expenses of a child unless the parent has signed a written agreement providing for college support. However, a duty of support may continue beyond the age of eighteen, if a child is unable to support himself or herself because of a physical or mental disability. The amount of child support that is payable in a case is based upon the monthly after tax incomes or earning capacities of the child's parents.
How is Income Defined in PA Support Cases?
Income for Pennsylvania support purposes includes such things as wages, salaries, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, interest, rental income, retirement income, Social Security retirement or disability payments, workers compensation, unemployment compensation, income from an interest in a business, entitlements to lump sum awards such as lottery winnings and any other sources of income. If a person does not have any income, but is capable of working, the parent may be assessed with an earning capacity. Rather than using gross or before tax income, the Pennsylvania courts use the monthly net, or after tax, incomes of each parent. Net income for support purposes is oftentimes different than the amount of money received in a parent's paycheck or what is listed on the parent's tax returns. For Pennsylvania support purposes, net income is defined as gross income minus actual federal, state, and local income taxes, union dues, non-voluntary retirement payments, F.I.C.A. payments, and alimony payments paid to the other party.
Calculation of Income for Self-employed Individuals
For self-employed persons, determining the amount of income available for support purposes may be difficult. Self-employed persons may not accurately report all of their income on tax returns or may take as deductions certain expenses that are actually personal expenses. For support purposes, certain expenses that are deductible for tax purposes may not be deductible from income for support purposes. The Pennsylvania support courts will carefully scrutinize the income claimed on the tax returns of self-employed individuals for these reasons.
Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines
Once the parents' monthly net incomes are calculated, Pennsylvania courts apply the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines to determine the amount of support payable for the children. The Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines are formulas that consider the income of the parents, the number of children, amongst other factors. In addition to the Pennsylvania Support Guideline amount, an order for child support may also require payment of a portion of other costs such as medical coverage for the dependent spouse and/or children, medical expenses not covered by insurance, and day care costs incurred while the custodial parent is working or going to school. Child support may be established below the Pennsylvania Support Guideline amount if the parents have shared physical custody or the payor has other children to support.
High Income Child Support Cases - Melzer Cases
If the parents of a minor child entitled to support have a combined monthly net income greater than fifteen thousand dollars net per month, the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines are not utilized to determine the proper amount of support. Instead, the court looks to what are the "reasonable needs" of the minor child considering the parents' combined incomes. In this situation, the custodial parent must prepare a budget of the child's current and anticipated expenses given the income of both parents. This reasonable needs analysis is often referred to as a "Melzer case" after the Pennsylvania case law that originally established this method for calculating support in high income cases.
Low Income/Partial Custody Cases
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a recent case ruled that the parent who has primary physical custody and has a substantially greater income than the other parent, may be required to pay child support to the non-custodial parent. The ruling in this case was a surprise to many of the Pennsylvania family law attorneys.
How Do I Begin to Collect or Modify Child Support in Pennsylvania?
A person seeking child support must file a support complaint with the court in order to establish a right to collect support. No legal obligation on the other party exists until the complaint is filed with the court. Similarly, if a reason exists to modify a support order such as an increase or decrease in income of either parent, the parent must file a request for a hearing to determine if modification of the support order is appropriate. Until a petition for modification is filed with the court and a new court order is entered, the parent paying support is required to continue making payments as outlined in the prior court order.
Enforcement of Pennsylvania Child Support Orders
If the parent who is required to pay child support has failed to comply with the order of court, the non-support case will be heard by a judge and that parent may be held in contempt. A parent must be found to have the present ability to pay and refused to do so prior to being found in contempt for non-payment of child support. After being found in contempt, there are numerous enforcement remedies available to secure payment of past due child support (also called support arrearages). These enforcement remedies include, among others, incarceration of the non-paying parent, suspension of driver's licenses, revocation of any other state-issued licenses including professional licenses, and imposition of attorney fees. The Allegheny County Sheriff's Department maintains a list on their website of the most serious cases of non-support and the names and photos of the Allegheny County deadbeat parents .
Duty to Report Changes of Income
There have been a number of Pennsylvania appellate cases involving the failure of a parent or spouse to report changes (generally increases) in income as the changes have occurred. The law clearly indicates that there is a duty to report an increase in income and if either party to a support action fails to report the change in income, there can be a retroactive modification of the support order to the date the change initially happened and an adjustment of the order back to that date. The retroactive modification of support and recalculation of the order generally results in significant arrerages (underpayment of support) and triggers agressive enforcement actions.
Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Offices
If you have an existing child support case and need to inquire whether a paid has been received, you can contact the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Office in the county where the child support order was entered by the court or telephone the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit (PA SCDU) at 1-877-676-9580.
Do You Have PA Child Support Questions?
Whether you need to initiate a new complaint for child support, modify the order already in place, or enforce your existing order, our staff of Pennsylvania support attorneys are ready to assist you. Remember that the initiation, modification, or enforcement of support will only take place after the necessary paperwork is submitted to the court, so act quickly, and schedule a consultation by emailing our office or telephoning our office at (412) 281-9906 for our Pittsburgh office, (724) 776-9906 for our Cranberry office, or toll-free at 1(866) PA-DIVORCE or 1(866) PA-CUSTODY .
Our Pennsylvania support attorneys and Pittsburgh child support lawyers are available for consultations in our downtown Pittsburgh office or in our Whitehall office, both located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and in our Butler County office located in Cranberry Township. If you live out of the Pittsburgh, PA or Butler, PA areas, you may be eligible for a consultation by telephone. Our Pennsylvania support lawyers accept child support cases in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Beaver County, Butler County, Washington County, and Westmoreland County (Greensburg). We accept child support cases from other Western Pennsylvania counties including Armstrong County (Kittanning), Clarion County, Fayette County, Greene County, Indiana County, Lawrence County, Mercer County, and Venango County on a case-by-case basis.
PA Appellate Cases Involving Child Support
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
Learn more, read an article
Disclaimer
The statements in this section are based on Pennsylvania law and have been issued to inform and not advise. The statements are general in nature and individual facts in a given case may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here.
