Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout274 S 2006 CATHERINE J. GEORGE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : DAVID L. BABNER, : PASCES NO. 072108160 DEFENDANT : 274 SUPPORT 2006 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., January 18, 2012: -- Plaintiff requests that this court grant her exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff contests the Master’s finding that the parties’ son, Aaron, date of birth: August 10, 1992, is physically and mentally able to engage in profitable employment and that employment is available to him at supporting wage. For the reasons explained below, the court concurs with the Master and denies Plaintiff’s request. I. Standard of Review The Support Master’s Report is to be given the fullest consideration and should not be disturbed unless the record indicated a clear abuse of discretion based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. 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, 351 (Pa. Super. 1988). 274 SUPPORT 2006 II. DISCUSSION As the foundation for our decision, we incorporate the Support Master’s findings 1 of fact in toto. Based on our review of the record and findings, as well as the briefs of the parties, we find that the Master properly concluded that Plaintiff had not met her burden of proof with respect to Defendant’s continuing duty to support Aaron. Although the interpretation of the facts may be in question, the law in this case is not disputed. The issue presented is whether following his graduation from high school in June 2011, Aaron remained unemancipated because of a physical or mental condition preventing him from being self-supporting. Hanson v. Hanson, 625 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1993). The presumption that the obligor is not required to support an adult child is rebuttal upon proof that the child’s disabilities prevent him from being self- supporting. Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2008). Ultimately, the custodial parent or the adult child has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Verna v. Verna, 432 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 1981). There is no dispute that Aaron has numerous diagnoses, including Bipolar 2 Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and Pervasive Development Disorder. Nor, is there any dispute that Aaron resided from April 2011 to July 2011 in a community rehabilitation residential host home in Hanover, Pennsylvania and currently lives in 3 another private host home. Finally, it is clear that mother has applied for social security Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, findings 1-25, August 31, 2011. 1 N.T. 14. Hearing, August 29, 2011. 2 N.T. 13 and 14. 3 -2- 274 SUPPORT 2006 disability benefits and social security income for Aaron; however, it is not entirely clear 4 what the status or determination is with respect to those benefits. Although we do not minimize Aaron’s physical or mental condition, in essence, Plaintiff is arguing that the mere fact that Aaron lives in a residential home, has been diagnosed, and has applied for SSI and SSDI renders him “obviously” or “clearly” unable to work. To the contrary, we find that the record is not entirely clear as to why Aaron resides in a host home, which in and of itself does not render him unable to work. Similarly, because Aaron held a part-time job in a grocery store and no explanation for his termination was provided, we cannot leap to the conclusion that his mental condition was the cause of his losing his employment. Further, applying for SSI and SSDI does not prove that Aaron is unable to engage in profitable employment. In sum, because we find that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden, we concur with the Master’s decision to remove Aaron from the support obligation. In closing, we note that the bar is not as low as Plaintiff asserts. By way of example, the mother and young man in Style, supra, presented substantially more evidence to the trial court than was presented here, and yet the Superior Court affirmed the determination that the evidence was insufficient. Therefore, the Master properly determined that Plaintiff had not met her burden, and accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record N.T. 15-17. 4 -3- 274 SUPPORT 2006 of the case presented to the Support Master on August 29, 2011, the briefs by the parties, and the court noting that neither party requested oral argument in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to DISMISSED the Master’s Report and Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated August 31, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Eric R. David, Esquire For Plaintiff Jennifer P. Wilson, Esquire For Defendant Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa -4- CATHERINE J. GEORGE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : DAVID L. BABNER, : PASCES NO. 072108160 DEFENDANT : 274 SUPPORT 2006 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented to the Support Master on August 29, 2011, the briefs by the parties, and the court noting that neither party requested oral argument in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to DISMISSED the Master’s Report and Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated August 31, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Eric R. David, Esquire For Plaintiff Jennifer P. Wilson, Esquire For Defendant Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa