HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-0208 SupportMARK E. RATHGEBER, ·
Plaintiff '
Vo
LAURA J. KROUT,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
DR. #29,484
NO. 00-208 SUPPORT
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., November 1, 2000.
In this child support case, a custodial father has appealed to the Superior
Court from an order of this court which attributed an earning capacity to the
noncustodial mother in excess of her actual income but somewhat less than her
actual earning capacity. The figure was established to accommodate to a limited
extent the mother's role as a nurturing parent of a child of a subsequent marriage.
The background of the case includes (a) a custody proceeding in which the
court awarded primary physical custody to the father and partial physical custody
to the mother of the two children of the parties' marriage,~ (b) the subsequent
filing of a complaint for child support by the father,2 and (c) the mother's appeal to
this court from an order for child support recommended by the Cumberland
County Domestic Relations Office.3
2000.
Subsequent to the hearing,
A hearing was held by this court on July 7,
the court entered the following order,
accommodating to a limited degree the mother's status as a nurturing parent, from
which the father has appealed:
AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2000, upon
consideration of Plaintiff's complaint for child support, filed
March 14, 2000, with respect to the parties' children, Ashton
H. Rathgeber (d.o.b. January 5, 1992) and Kevin Edward
~ N.T. 14, Hearing, July 7, 2000 (hereinafter N.T.
2N.T. 3.
3 N.T. 3-4.
Rathgeber (d.o.b. April 17, 1995), and of Defendant's appeal
from the recommended order of court dated April 17, 2000,
which assigned Plaintiff a net income/earning capacity of
$2398.34 per month (based upon his income as a postal
worker) and Defendant a net income/earning capacity of
$1604.14 (based upon her income as an employee of Capital
Blue Cross), and following a de novo hearing held on July 7,
2000, and Defendant having voluntarily left her employment as
of June 1, 2000, in order to be at home with a child of her
present marriage (d.o.b. March 28, 1999) and having thereby
reduced her actual net income to $400.00 per month (said
present income being derived from her provision of child care
services in her home), and the court being of the view that a net
income/earning capacity of at least $1,000.00 per month can
fairly be attributed to Defendant which will accommodate her
desire to spend more time as a nurturing parent with the child
of her present marriage while recognizing that this role was
chosen by Defendant only after Plaintiff had filed a complaint
for child support for the two children of the parties' marriage,
and more than a year after the birth of Defendant's child of her
present marriage, and both parties being in agreement that the
order of court should contain a provision directing that
Defendant provide medical and dental insurance coverage for
the children who are the subjects of this order, it is ordered and
directed as follows:
1. Defendant shall provide medical and
dental insurance coverage for the parties'
children. Plaintiff shall also provide such
coverage to the extent that his employer offers it.
2. From March 14, 2000, until June 1, 2000,
Defendant's child support obligation shall be
$486.66 per month, plus $23.34 for arrears, based
on a monthly net income/earning capacity on the
part of Plaintiff of $2398.34 and a monthly net
income/earning capacity of Defendant of
$1604.14, unreimbursed medical expenses over
$250.00 to be paid 40% by Defendant and 60 %
by Plaintiff. The calculation resulting in this
determination is attached hereto as Appendix A.
3. Commencing June 1, 2000, Defendant's
child support obligation shall be $288.63 per
month plus $21.37 for arrears, based on a
monthly net income/earning capacity on the part
of Plaintiff of $2398.34 and a monthly net
income/earning capacity of Defendant of
$1,000.00, unreimbursed medical expenses over
$250.00 to be paid 30% by Defendant and 70%
by Plaintiff. The calculation resulting in this
determination is attached hereto as Appendix B.
This opinion in support of the order appealed from is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff is Mark E. Rathgeber, a 42-year-old individual residing at 119
Opossum Lake Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4 Defendant is
Laura J. Krout, a 27-year-old individual residing at 30 Sunset Drive,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.s
The parties were previously married, and two children were born of their
relationship: Ashton H. Rathgeber, born January 5, 1992, and Kevin E. Rathgeber,
born April 17, 1995.6 The parties were divorced on September 16, 1997.7
Defendant mother remarried following the divorce, to Ricky Krout.8 One
child has been bom of this relationship: Tommy Krout, bom March 28, 1999.9
On March 14, 2000, the father filed the complaint for child support sub
judice. (In a contested custody action with respect to the parties' children, this
court issued an order on June 13, 2000, awarding the parties joint legal custody,
the father primary physical custody, and the mother partial physical custody. ~0)
Following a support conference, an order recommended by the Cumberland
4 N.T. 4-6.
5 N.T. 5-6.
6 N.T. 5-7.
7 N.T. 7.
gN.T. 7.
9N.T. 7.
l0 N.T. 14; Order of Court, June 13 2000, Rathgeber v. Krout, No. 99-4458 Civil Term
(Cumberland County).
3
County Domestic Relations Office was issued on April 17, 2000. The mother
appealed to this court from the recommended order, and a de novo hearing on the
matter of child support was held by the court on July 7, 2000.
In its capacity as trier-of-fact, the court found the evidence at the hearing to
have shown the following additional facts.~ Plaintiff father is employed by the
United States Postal Service as a clerk at the post office in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.~2 At all times pertinent hereto, his net monthly income has been
$2398.34.~3
Defendant mother is a high school graduate.TM Presently, her actual net
monthly income is between $380.00 and $400.00, from child care services she
performs in her home.~5 She is also a nurturing mother in that she stays home to
take care of the child of her present marriage,~6 born March 28, 1999,~7 while her
husband works.~8
When the parties were together, and prior to the birth of their first child in
1992, the mother was employed full time.~9 However, when the child was born
she stopped work to stay at home with her.2° When Ashton was sixteen months
~ The evidence presented at the hearing was in the form of several stipulations of counsel and
testimony from the mother
12 N.T. 4-5.
~3 N.T. 6.
14 N.T. 12.
~5 N.T. 1 0.
16 N.T. 9.
~7 N.T. 7.
~S See N.T. 11.
~9 See N.T. 7-8.
20 N.T. 8.
4
old, the mother resumed working about nine hours a week.2~ When the child
reached the age of 22 months, the mother resumed full-time employment?
Upon the birth of the parties' second child in 1995, the mother again
stopped work to stay at home with him.23 When Kevin was three months old, she
was able to secure evening shift work which permitted her to be at home with him
during the day.24 However, when he was six months old she reduced this
employment to part-time status to be more available for him.25
During her present marriage, and prior to the birth of her most recent child
in March of 1999, the mother had secured full-time employment as an account
administrator with Capital Blue Cross in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.26 Her net
monthly income was $1604.14.27 Upon the birth of the child, she stopped working
to stay home with him.28
It had been the plan of the mother and her husband that she not resume
employment so that she could be home with the child? However, unexpected
financial difficulties caused her to resume full-time employment with Capital Blue
Cross in July of 1999, when Tommy was three months old.3°
As it developed, the mother's employer was not willing to accommodate
her parental responsibilities in terms of time off for pediatric care.31 For that
reason, and in furtherance of the initial plan for her to stay home with Tommy, the
21 N.T. 8.
22 N.T. 8.
23 N.T. 8.
24 N.T. 8.
25 N.T. 8.
26 N.T. 5, 12.
2, N.T. 6.
28 N.T. 8.
29 N.T. 8.
30 N.T. 8.
31 N.T. 14.
5
mother exchanged her employment at Capital Blue Cross for the less remunerative
enterprise in her home discussed above, on June 1, 2000.32
With this background, the court was of the view that child support, pursuant
to the guidelines, should be awarded to the father up until June 1, 2000, based on
the actual net monthly incomes of the parties of $2398.34 (father) and $1604.14
(mother), and that after that date child support, pursuant to the guidelines, should
be awarded to the father based on the father's actual net monthly income of
$2398.34 and a net monthly earning capacity on the part of the mother of
$1000.00.33 This latter figure was substantially in excess of her actual income, but
somewhat less than the income derived from her prior employment.
The father has appealed.
Several basic principles of child support have been set forth by Judge, now
Justice, Saylor in Frankenfield v. Feeser, 449 Pa. Super. 47, 672 A.2d 1347
(1996):
Id. at 51,
It is settled law that both parents are equally responsible
for the support of their children. The determination of a
parent's ability to provide support is based upon the parent's
earning capacity rather than upon his or her actual earnings.
However, an exception to this general rule exists in the form of
the "nurturing parent doctrine."... [T]he nurturing parent
doctrine holds that earning capacity cannot always be imputed
to a parent who chooses to stay home with a minor child. In
appropriate cases, such a nurturing parent may be excused
from contributing support payments. A trial court, so holding,
must consider the age and maturity of the child, the availability
of others who might assist the parent, the adequacy of available
financial resources if the parent remains at home, and finally,
the parent's desire to stay home and nurture the minor child.
672 A.2d at 1349 (citations omitted).
32 N.T. 9, 14.
33 The computations of the support obligations under the guidelines were attached to the order as
appendices.
The fact that the object of a nurturing parent may be the child of a marriage
subsequent to the marriage of the parties in a child support case does not preclude
application of the nurturing parent doctrine. See, e.g., FrankenfieM v. Feeser, 449
Pa. Super. 47, 672 A.2d 1347 (1996); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 420 Pa. Super. 146,
616 A.2d 22 (1992); Hesidenz v. Carbin, 354 Pa. Super. 610, 512 A.2d 707
(1986); Klein v. Sarubin, 324 Pa. Super. 363,471 A.2d 881 (1984). Nor does the
fact that the nurturing parent may have a work history preclude application of the
doctrine. FrankenfieMv. Feeser, 449 Pa. Super. 47, 672 A.2d 1347 (1996).
Thus, in Frankenfield the Superior Court affirmed a lower court's
application of the nurturing parent doctrine in a child support case where a mother,
with an employment history, had assumed the role of nurturing parent with respect
to a child of a marriage subsequent to that of the parties. Noting the trial court's
finding that "the parties [during their marriage] gave some priority to one of the
parents remaining at home with [their child]," and the trial court's conclusion that
it seemed appropriate to "afford [the] mother that opportunity once again with her
new child," the Superior Court held that the lower court had not abused its
discretion in declining to assign an earning capacity to the mother. Id. at 50, 57,
672 A.2d at 1349, 1352.
In the present case, the court calculated the mother's child support
obligation in accordance with the support guidelines based upon her actual net
income up to June 1, 2000. Thereafter, it calculated her child support obligation in
accordance with the support guidelines based upon an assignment of a net earning
capacity substantially in excess of her actual net income, but somewhat less than
the income she would have earned had she not resigned her full-time job and
resumed the role of nurturing parent.
In rendering this decision, the court took into consideration, inter aiia, the
parties' own history of adherence to the nurturing parent philosophy, the mother's
work history, the financial situations of the parties, and the credibility of the
mother's testimony as to her initial plan to remain at home and her reasons for
resuming the role of nurturing parent after a period of full-time employment. In
declining to adopt the father's position that the mother's prior earnings as a full-
time employee should have been attributed to her in the form of earning capacity,
the court accepted the legitimacy of the mother's claim to the status of nurturing
parent for purposes of child support; in declining to absolve her of all
responsibility for child support, the court took into account her present income and
her past ability to work outside the home on a limited basis while accommodating
the role of nurturing parent.
Jarad W. Handelman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
BY THE COURT,
iWesley CJ e .,~J~.,- 'i '
Diane M. Rupich, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
DRO