Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095 S 2002 GERALD R. MORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : AMBER PARLATI, : PASCES NO. 038105095 DEFENDANT : 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., February 14, 2012: -- Plaintiff requests that this court grant his exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons explained below, the court denies that request. I. FACTS Plaintiff, Gerald R. Morton (Father) and Defendant, Amber Parlati (Mother) are the parents of a minor child, Sophia M. Parlati (Child). Having addressed a separate issue in this support case in an opinion and order of court dated July 22, 2011, we refrain from repeating all of the facts, most of which have not 1 changed, and instead incorporate the Support Master’s findings of fact in toto After the hearing on November 14, 2011, and upon consideration of the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the court entered an interim order on November 14, 2011. In short, the court order modified the monthly obligation of Father based on Mother’s change of employment and a concomitant Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Findings 1-17, November 14, 1 2011. 1095 SUPPORT 2002 change in childcare. The Master also addressed issues regarding orthodontic treatment for child. Father filed the following exceptions: 1. The Plaintiff filed the notice of appeal one day late. 2. The Defendant is claiming she has $100 in child care per week but did not provide the lower court with receipts or tax documents supporting that. 3. Support Master erred when awarding the dental bills again after terminating them in a previous hearing. 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. Father’s Exceptions First, with respect to the allegation that Mother filed the notice of appeal one day late, we note that that is not borne out by the record. The docket clearly reflects that the request for a hearing de novo was filed by the Plaintiff on September 16, 2011, well within the twenty day period noted in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12. In fact, Mother’s handwritten request was clocked in at 1:19 p.m. on September 16, 2011. We note that Father’s second claim is one they he simply refuses to let go of. In our previous order we noted “The record satisfied the Master and the Court -2- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 that the Mother incurs childcare expenses of $100 per week. Mother testified credibly regarding these costs and, therefore, further documentation was not 2 necessary.” The only thing that has changed with respect to the issue of childcare expenses is the fact that Mother did not incur those expenses for a period of time due to her unemployment. We find that the Master properly accounted for that time period in his reduction of the Father’s obligation. Although it is likely that this question will resurface again, we suggest that the sum was not only established credibly but is also an eminently fair amount. Thirdly, Father is upset that he was charged for the orthodontic treatment for child. We concur fully with the Master’s assessment: The Defendant has not contested the necessity of this treatment. His only complaint is that the Plaintiff did not advise him that Sofia was beginning the treatment in January, 2011. He was aware of his daughter’s dental problems that would eventually require orthodontic treatment. The expense will be allocated 3 between the parties. Finally, having carefully reviewed the record in this case, including the notes of testimony, we note that the Master exercised great restraint in the hearing. Ultimately, he could no longer bite his lip, and declared “Stop. Stop.” on page 22 of the 24 pages of the notes of testimony. This court might have lost its patience on page 2. The court does not minimize or ridicule the parties’ emotions; however, we suggest that they would be better served by looking for Order of Court, July 22, 2011, at 4. 2 Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, at 3. 3 -3- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 icebergs as opposed to quibbling over the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Sophia needs and deserves parents who view the big picture. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons we find that the Master’s Finding and Recommendations are fully supported by the law and the record and dismiss Father’s exceptions. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the exceptions filed to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master IT IS HEREBY ORDERED on November 14, 2011, and the brief filed by Plaintiff, AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and DISMISSED Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated November 14, 2011 is entered as final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Gerald Morton, Pro se 1956 Reservoir Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Amber Parlati, Pro se 116 Pine Grove Road New Bloomfield, PA 17068 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa -4- GERALD R. MORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : AMBER PARLATI, : PASCES NO. 038105095 DEFENDANT : 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the exceptions filed to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master IT IS HEREBY ORDERED on November 14, 2011, and the brief filed by Plaintiff, AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and DISMISSED Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated November 14, 2011 is entered as final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Gerald Morton, Pro se 1956 Reservoir Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Amber Parlati, Pro se 116 Pine Grove Road New Bloomfield, PA 17068 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa