J-S63031-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.R.A., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
A.S.,
Appellant No. 590 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order March 4, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Domestic Relations at No.: 2008-04057
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2015
Appellant, A.S. (Father), appeals from the order, after a hearing,
reinstating child support for the parents’ daughter, S.S. 1 Father alleges the
trial court erred in accepting an untimely response from Appellee, M.R.A.
(Mother) to determine the effective date of the order terminating child
support.2 We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Although the order appealed from was dated March 3, 2014, it was entered
on the docket and filed on March 4, 2014. We have amended the caption
accordingly.
2
Mother has not filed a brief in this appeal.
J-S63031-14
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
For convenience of reference, we note briefly that Father maintains
that Mother filed an untimely notice of appeal from multiple notices of the
emancipation of the parties’ minor child by the Domestic Relations Office of
Lancaster County. After a hearing, the trial court sustained Mother’s appeal
and vacated the termination of support order on finding that S.S. was still
enrolled in high school. Father timely appealed.3
Father raises two questions on appeal:
1. Did the [trial] court err as a matter of law in
determining the effective date of the March 3, 2014 [o]rder
when [Mother] filed an untimely response to the emancipation
inquiry, which resulted in the issuance of a final order
terminating the child support?
2. Did the [trial] court err as a matter of law in finding
[Mother] properly filed an exception to a final order terminating
child support?
(Father’s Brief, at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, Father’s brief, the applicable
law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there
is no merit to the issues Father has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion
properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion,
____________________________________________
3
Father also filed a timely statement of errors pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
-2-
J-S63031-14
dated May 30, 2014, and filed 6/02/14, at 4-8) (finding: (1) trial court
properly exercised its discretion in vacating the order terminating support
and reinstating the order of child support on proof of enrollment where
Mother testified she did not receive the prior inquiries and on receiving the
notice of termination she immediately filed a handwritten request to appeal,
and the trial court determined Mother to be credible; and (2) trial court
properly accepted Mother’s pro se handwritten request to appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/11/2015
-3-