Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1076 S 2002 LAUREN L. THEISEN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION V. : : PACSES NO. 194105088 : CHRISTIAN M. SMITH, : DEFENDANT : 1076 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., August 1, 2011:-- Plaintiff/Petitioner requests that this court grant her exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated below, this court grants that request in part. I. Facts Lauren L. Thiesen (Mother) and Christian M. Smith (Father) are the parents of a minor child, Tyler J. Smith (Child). On February 11, 2011, Mother filed a complaint for support of said Child. Mother is married and lives with her husband, their infant child and Child. She is employed as a graphic designer by NEFRA Communications Center, Inc. Mother earns $18.00 per hour and works 38-40 hours a week. Since April 4, 2011, Mother has been on maternity leave and plans to return to work in early June. Mother testified that she is not being paid by her employer during her maternity leave, but is receiving approximately 40% of her normal income from a temporary disability insurance plan. Mother also provides health insurance coverage for the Child and anticipates incurring childcare expenses during the summer. 1076 SUPPORT 2002 Father is single and is currently unemployed. He was last employed in September 2010 as a maintenance technician for Longmeadows Apartments where he earned $14.00 per hour for a 40-hour work week. Father’s employment was terminated for willful misconduct and although he has filed for unemployment compensation benefits, the benefits were denied. Father has not attempted to find new employment since the termination as a result of suffering from chronic opiate addiction as a result of painkiller usage following an automobile accident. Father testified that the doctor suggested returning to full work in late July 2011. Father is currently living with his mother, although he still maintains his own residence. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review A Support Master’s Report is to be given the fullest consideration and should not be disturbed unless the record indicates a clear abuse of discretion based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). Abuse of discretion is found where the evidence on record is insufficient to sustain the award, where the law is overridden or misapplied, or where the exercise of judgment is unreasonable. Lampa v. Lampa, 538 A.2d 350, 352 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988). B. Exception Concerning Effective Date Mother’s exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation essentially raise one issue concerning the effective date of the Support Master’s Order. While the Support Master has the effective date for the support order as June 1, 2011, Mother argues that the order should be retroactive to the date her complaint was filed: -2- 1076 SUPPORT 2002 February 11, 2011. While this court will enforce the Support Master’s order in all other aspects, the court grants Mother’s exception concerning the order’s effective date. According to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.17(a), “[a]n order of support shall be effective from the date of the filing of the complaint or petition for modification unless the order specifies otherwise.” Here, the complaint was filed on February 11, 2011 and although the order specifies a different effective date, it is preferable for the Support Master to provide specific and appropriate justification for later effective date. Sutliff v. Sutliff, 489 A.2d 764, 781 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985). Our courts favor retroactivity finding it to be congruent with the purpose of a support order: to provide the party requiring support a living allowance. Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630, 636 (Pa. 2003). In this case, the Support Master fails to provide appropriate justification for the later effective date. There is nothing in the record to indicate any change in position of either party between February 11, 2011 and June 1, 2011. In addition, Mother has reduced funds available during this time as a result of maternity leave. There is nothing in the record to indicate the Support Master’s reasons for choosing the later effective date. As such, the support order should be effective retroactively to the date Mother filed her complaint. III. Conclusion In conclusion, the court finds that the Support Master erred in setting the effective date of the Support Order at June 1, 2011. The court will amend the order with an effective date of February 11, 2011. All other recommendations set out in the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations will be enforced. -3- 1076 SUPPORT 2002 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2011, Plaintiff’s exceptions to the GRANTED interim order of court are with respect to the effective date of the support order, which shall be February 11, 2011. In all other respects, the interim order of is made a final order of court. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. John M. Kerr, Esquire For Plaintiff Christian M. Smith, Pro se 4 Plainfield Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa -4- LAUREN L. THEISEN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION V. : : PACSES NO. 194105088 : CHRISTIAN M. SMITH, : DEFENDANT : 1076 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2011, Plaintiff’s exceptions to the GRANTED interim order of court are with respect to the effective date of the support order, which shall be February 11, 2011. In all other respects, the interim order of May 4, 2011, is made a final order of court. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. John M. Kerr, Esquire For Plaintiff Christian M. Smith, Pro se 4 Plainfield Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa