Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0590 SupportAMANDA L. RICCIO, Plaintiff MATTHEW T. BAUM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION CIVIL ACTION- SUPPORT NO. 99-590 SUPPORT IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR CHILD SUPPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint for child support, filed May 11, 2000, with respect to the parties' child, Cainan Riccio-Baum (d.o.b. September 9, 1998), and of Defendant's appeal from the recommended order of court dated August 22, 2000, following a hearing held on January 12, 2001, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. From May 11, 2000, to October 30, 2000, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $435.54, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 50% (Plaintiff) and 50% (Defendant). (The guideline figure of $578.50 per month would reduce Defendant's disposable income to $407.04 per month. The $435.54 figure adopted will leave Defendant with disposable income of $550.00). 2. From October 30, 2000, to November 5, 2000, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $660.92, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 45% (Plaintiff) and 55% (Defendant). 3. From November 5, 2000, to November 14, 2000, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $280.55, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 45% (Plaintiff) and 55% (Defendant). 4. From November 14, 2000, to January 5, 2001, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $427.99, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 46% (Plaintiff) and 54% (Defendant). 5. Commencing January 5, 2001, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $393.41, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 46% (Plaintiff) and 54% (Defendant). 6. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to recalculate arrearages in accordance with this order. 7. The calculations under the guidelines resulting in these obligations are attached hereto as appendices. Where a deviation from the guidelines is involved, the deviation is to avoid the circumstance of a reduction of Defendant's disposable monthly income below $550.00. 8. The generic and other portions of the order of court dated August 22, 2000, not incompatible with this order shall remain in full force and effect. R.K. Smith, Jr., Esq. R.R.2, Box 162 Manchester, PA 17345' Attorney for Plaintiff James Kayer, Esq. 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, ~/,~4e;ley O1 r~/Jr., Jr ~. DRO AMANDA L. RICCIO, Plaintiff Vo MATTHEW T. BAUM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT NO. 99-590 SUPPORT IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR CHILD SUPPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., January 24, 2001. In this child support case, Plaintiff Amanda L. Riccio filed a complaint for support against Defendant Matthew T. Baum, with respect to their child, Cainan Riccio-Baum, on May 11, 2000. Following a Domestic Relations Office conference,~ a recommended order was entered on August 22, 2000.2 Defendant appealed from the recommended order, and a de novo hearing was held by the court on January 12, 2001. Issues presented for resolution by the court included the amount of Plaintiff's income/earning capacity and the necessity for, and reasonableness of, certain child-care expenses which Plaintiff incurred. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the following findings of fact, discussion and order of court will be made and entered. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is Amanda L. Riccio, 20; she resides at 202 East Portland Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant is Matthew T. Baum, 22; he resides at 121 East Simpson Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.10-11. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.1 l(f). The parties are the parents of Cainan Riccio-Baum, born September 9, 1998. Plaintiff is the primary physical custodian of the parties' child. Each party is single. Plaintiff's employment history and income since the filing of the complaint for child support in this case have been as follows. From May 11, 2000, until November 5, 2000, she worked at a child-care establishment known as KinderCare, with a gross monthly income of $1,152.66. She resigned from this position because of dissatisfaction with the low income in relation to day-care expenses and was unemployed from November 5, 2000, until November 14, 2000. From November 14, 2000, until January 5, 2001, she worked for a company known as Hickory Farms, with a gross monthly income of $1,213.33. This employment terminated due to its seasonal nature, and Plaintiff is in the process 6f obtaining new employment. Plaintiff's child-care expenses from May 11, 2000, until November 5, 2000, were $165.00 per week, or $715.00 per month, with the exception of one week, when they were $50.00; the day-care during this six-month period was provided by Plaintiff's place of employment (KinderCare), and the cost was deducted from her gross wages. From November 14, 2000, until January 5, 2001, her child-care expenses were $75.00 per week, or $325.00 per month. Presently, as she seeks employment, her child-care expenses are $60.00 per week, or $260.00 per month. The court found credible Plaintiff's testimony that Defendant's unstable temperament had led her to be reluctant to entrust the child's care to him in place of third-party child-care. Although the cost of the day-care at KinderCare, where Plaintiff worked, was somewhat high, the court also felt it was not unreasonable of Plaintiff to accept the services of her employer for the provision of child-care. Defendant's employment history and income since the filing of the complaint for child support have been as follows. From May 11, 2000, until October 30, 2000, Defendant worked for a company known as Uni Mart, with a gross monthly income of $1,213.33. From October 30, 2000, to the present, 2 Defendant has worked as a laborer for a company known as Washington Group International, with a gross monthly income of$1,520.00. From May 11, 2000, until October 30, 2000, no health insurance was provided for the child. From October 30, 2000, to the present, Defendant has been paying $36.21 per month in premiums for health insurance covering Defendant and the child. Occasionally during the period from the filing of the complaint for child support herein on May 11, 2000, to the present Defendant has stayed at Plaintiff's residence. These events were sporadic and unpredictable, and did not, in the court's view, alter the basic status of separation of the parties for purposes of their respective support obligations toward the child. In accordance with the foregoing, the court has (1) assigned Plaintiff a monthly net income/earning capacity of $1003.41 for the period from May 11, 2000, to November 14, 2000,3 and a monthly net income/earning capacity of $1048.04 for the period from November 14, 2000, to the present, (2) assigned Defendant a monthly net income/earning capacity of $985.54 for the period from May 11, 2000, to October 30, 2000, and a monthly net income/earning capacity of $1211.08 for the period from October 30, 2000, to the present, (3) determined Plaintiff's child-care expenses to have been $715.00 per month (with one week at $50.00) for the period from May 11, 2000, to November 5, 2000, $0.00 per month for the period from November 5, 2000, to November 14, 2000, $325.00 per month for the period from November 14, 2000, to January 5, 2001, and $260.00 per month from January 5, 2001, to the present, (4) found that such child-care expenses were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, and (5) found Defendant's payments for health insurance coverage for himself and the child to have been $36.21 per month for the period from October 30, 2001, to the present. 3 The net monthly income/earning capacity figures herein have been arrived at by application of the standard Domestic Relations Office computer program to the gross net monthly 3 DISCUSSION Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, "[t]he amount of support to be awarded is based in large part upon the parties' monthly net income,''4 to which the support guidelines are applied.5 As a general rule, where one's earning capacity exceeds his or her actual income, the earning capacity figure is to be utilized for the computation.6 Deviations from the guidelines are permissible in exceptional cases. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5. Awards, for instance, which leave an obligor with less than $550.00 per month to live on himself or herself are not encouraged. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1, Explanatory Comment 1998. With respect to child-care expenses of the custodial parent, the child support rule in Pennsylvania is that they are to be shared according to each party's percentage of their combined net income and subject to a certain federal tax credit relating to child-care expenses. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-(6)(a). With respect to health insurance premiums, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910,16-6(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A party's payment of a premium to provide health insurance coverage on behalf of the other party or the children shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes, including the portion of the premium attributable to the party who is paying it. If the obligor is paying the premium, then [the] obligee's share is deducted from the obligor's basic support obligation. If the obligee is paying the premium, then obligor's share is added to his or her basic support obligation .... (2) When the health insurance covers other persons or children who are not the subject of the support action, the portion of the premium attributable to them must be excluded income/earning capacity figures found above. The program applies appropriate filing statuses, exemptions and tax rates to the gross figures. 4 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2. 5 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1(b). 6 See, e.g., Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4) (income potential). 4 from allocation. In the event this portion is not known or cannot be verified, it shall be calculated as follows. First, determine the cost per person by dividing the total cost of the premium by the number of persons covered under the policy. Second, multiply the cost per person by the number of persons who are not the subject of the support action. The resulting amount is excluded from allocation. Based upon these principles, and the foregoing findings of fact, the following order of court will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint for child support, filed May 11, 2000, with respect to the parties' child, Cainan Riccio-Baum (d.o.b. September. 9, 1998), and of Defendant's appeal from the recommended order of court dated August 22, 2000, following a hearing held on January 12, 2001, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. From May 11, 2000, to October 30, 2000, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $435.54, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 50% (Plaintiff) and 50% (Defendant). (The guideline figure of $578.50 per month would reduce Defendant's disposable income to $407.04 per month. The $435.54 figure adopted will leave Defendant with disposable income of $550.00). 2. From October 30, 2000, to November 5, 2000, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $660.92, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 45% (Plaintiff) and 55% (Defendant). 3. From November 5, 2000, to November 14, 2000~ Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $280.55, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 45% (Plaintiff) and 55% (Defendant). 5 4. From November 14, 2000, to January 5, 2001, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $427.99, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 46% (Plaintiff) and 54% (Defendant). 5. Commencing January 5, 2001, Defendant's basic child support obligation is fixed at $393.41, the parties' percentages of combined net income being 46% (Plaintiff) and 54% (Defendant). 6. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to recalculate arrearages in accordance with this order. 7. The calculations under the guidelines resulting in these obligations are attached hereto as appendices. Where a deviation from the guidelines is involved, the deviation is to avoid the circumstance of a reduction of Defendant's disposable monthly income below $550.00. 8. The generic and other portions of the order of court dated August 22, 2000, not incompatible with this order shall remain in full force and effect. BY THE COURT, R.K. Smith, Jr., Esq. R.R.2, Box 162 Manchester, PA 17345 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 6 James Kayer, Esq. 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant DRO CHILD 60.00 Total:Obligati0'n'::With AdjUStments .' : ~2~9~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::: ::.:::::::::::::: ::. ::::u: ::::::::. :: :.: :'.:: ::::::.::: ::::: ::: ::::' ". : --: '::::-::.:::::i:~:~::~i ~:~:~h::::.:: ' .:::::':: ::::-' ' - :P~NT/DEF :~ :: ::~:" NAME~:~:::. ~::: :::. ::;':::. ~ :~ ::~':~ :Amount ~'.': ~ .~ ~-:~.:'::'Annu:al:Am:o'unt~ ? ~: ~ ::::::'" :: ' ::~ cHILD ?5. oo '::~:: ..::..:::::' '~'::::~'~L -:' .:~::~ 39°0::,~°° ~.::~-~-~:' · ~..: : : ~ ~ :: . . ::' ~:~::2 ~ : : .::::~ 2~.:~:: ....... [~[~, :::':'' ' ': ' .2..'~. NUmber:of Children Residing With ~ '~. :: :. ~ Reduution ~o;r:.Sbafed Custody . .... . o;'oo':. :: : In:suran¢e~p~'emium:Adjustment · ~:8'. ~t . - .. :.; ::.. :::;:::::.':::;:.: :: :.: :: · ~:: . ::... : ..... ....:. :.. ::~ :..::: :.. :: .:..:: :....