Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-1272 supportIDA M. PETKUS, : Plaintiff ' : VS. : .. JOHN O. DUDLEY, : Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1272 SUPPORT 1992 DOMESTIC RELATINS SECTION DR 20858 IN RE' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this /b~ day of June, 2000, our order of January 7, 2000, is VACATED. The order of July 21, 1999, is modified to provide that the defendant shall pay on account of the support of his child, Erika L. Dudley, the sum of $1,320.00 per month payable bi- weekly. The order is further modified to provide that unreimburse medical expense shall include expenses for psychiatric and/or psychological services. That portion of the order providing for the payment of one-half of the parochial school tuition is stricken. All other terms and conditions of our order of July 21, 1999, not inconsistent herewith, shall remain in full force and effect. John J. Baranski, Esquire For the Plaintiff BY THE COURT, ess, J. Thomas S. Diehl, Esquire For the Defendant DRO IDA M. PETKUS, Plaintiff VS. JOHN O. DUDLEY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1.272 SUPPORT 1992 DOMESTIC RELATINS SECTION DR 20858 IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE HESS, J. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter has been before the court at one procedural stage or another since July of 1999 on the plaintiff' s appeal from a recommended support order. As noted in our memorandum of January 7, 2000, the order about which the plaintiff complains doubled the father' s support obligation from an existing order of $730.00 per month to more than $1,400.00 per month. The first hearing on the appeal was held on December 6, 1999. Following the entry of our order on January 7, 2000, we granted the plaintiff' s request for reconsideration. Another hearing was held in this matter on March 30, 2000. At both hearings, the issues were essentially the same. The plaintiff seeks an increase in the order and an upward deviation from the guidelines for certain expenses of the child, including college application and registration fees, SAT preparation classes and a summer theatre program as well as the cost of her automobile insurance. We continue to believe that these are the normal expenses associated in raising a child and should be expected to be covered in the rather substantial amount of $1,300.00 per month. The plaintiff also requested that we direct the father to pay his proportionate share of unreimbursed psychiatric and psychological expenses. This request was granted. 1272 SUPPORT 1992 We declined to modify the support order upward to cover the costs of the child' s parochial school education. Even after a second hearing in this case, we continue to believe that . a parochial school education was not consistent with the lifestyles of the parties during the marriage and is not a responsibility which the defendant should be required to undertake. Unquestionably, the most difficult issue in this case is the earning potential of the plaintiff. Both the Domestic Relations Office in its recommended order and this court in our order of January 7, 2000, gave the plaintiff an earning potential of approximately $3,000.00, or net earnings of $36,000.00 per year. At the most recent hearing in this case, the plaintiff presented her social security statement containing her entire past earnings history. The earnings record reflected income in the year 1987 of $38,728.00. Her income in 1986 and in 1990 were $30,928.00 and $31,322.00 respectively. In all other years, her income was below $30,000.00. At our first hearing in this case the defendant proffered testimony that her current earning capacity was approximately $7.00 per hour. This equates to $280.00 a week for a forty-hour work week or, in round numbers, approximately $1,000.00 per month. The Domestic Relations Office ascribed to .the plaintiff an earning potential of approximately $3,000.00 a month which is not at all surprising in light of the fact that the defendant grossed more than that amount thirteen years ago. It is only logical to assume pay increases from and after that time. It is at this point that we feel it important to observe the relative insignificance of the question of the plaintiff' s earning potential in this particular case. Even if we accept her testimony, entirely, giving her an earning potential of no more than $1,000.00 per month, this brings the combined total income of the parties to $9,300.00 with total support appropriate to one child being $1,488.00. The defendant's share (90% of that amount) is $1,339.00, only $39.00 1272 SUPPORT 1992 per month more than the existing order. Ascribing an earning potential of $2,000.00 to the plaintiff results in a difference between the current order and the guidelines of $18.40. Because, 'however, other aspects of the support order, namely the sharing of unreimbursed medical expenses, turns on the proportion of the parties' incomes, it is incumbent upon us to be precise. We will resolve the matter in something of a compromise, not because it is necessarily more practical but because we believe it reflects the reality of Mrs. Petkus's situation. We conclude that her earning potential is not less than $2,000.00. Accordingly, we will once again amend our order of July 21, 1999. ORDER AND NO W, this / 6, ~' day of June, 2000, our order of January 7, 2000, is VACATED. The order of July 21, 1999, is modified to provide that the defendant shall pay on account of the support of his child, Erika L. Dudley, the sum of $1,320.00 per month payable bi- weekly. The order is further modified to provide that unreimbursed medical expense shall include expenses for psychiatric and/or psychological services. That portion of the order providing for the p. ayment of one-half of the parochial school tuition is stricken. All other terms and conditions of our order of July 21, 1999, not inconsistent herewith, shall remain in full force and effect. BY THE COURT, ess, J.