J-A17036-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
EDWARD BARNABEI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DONNA DEVITIS
Appellant No. 2603 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 30, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No: 2003-06071
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 20, 2014
Appellant, Donna DeVitis, appeals pro se from the trial court’s July 30,
2013 support order. This Court has reviewed this child support action on
several occasions. Most recently, on June 29, 2011, this Court reversed the
trial court’s support order because, among other things, it assigned
Appellant zero earning capacity. On remand, the trial court conducted a six-
day hearing and thereafter issued the order on appeal. We now affirm.
Appellant includes ten assertions of trial court error in her appellate
brief. Appellant’s Pro Se Brief at 6-8. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs,
the pertinent portions of the record, the applicable law, and the trial court
opinion.1 We conclude the trial court’s opinion aptly addresses Appellant’s
____________________________________________
1
Our standard of review is as follows:
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A17036-14
assertions of error. In particular, we believe the record supports the trial
court’s conclusion that Appellees did not change jobs with the goal of
seeking to avoid his child support obligation. Trial Court Opinion, 11/8/13,
at 16. We also agree that, under circumstances here present, the trial court
was permitted by statute to deduct Appellee’s health insurance premiums
from his gross income. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(b)(4). Trial Court Opinion,
11/18/13, at 19. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s decision not
to assign Appellant an earning capacity. Id. at 20. Appellant’s Brief in
support of her ten assertions of error is repetitive and difficult to follow.
Nonetheless, we believe the trial court properly discerned Appellant’s
preserved assertions of error and denied relief. We therefor affirm the July
30, 2013 order based on the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion.
Order affirmed.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse
the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be
sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the
broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the
discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order.
An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in
reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law,
or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either
manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note
that the duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose
of child support is to promote the child’s best interests.
Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa. Super. 2008).
-2-
J-A17036-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/20/2014
-3-