J-S51022-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
C.J.F. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
T.W.F. :
:
Appellant : No. 1004 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered June 25, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
1369-SA-2013
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2021
T.W.F. (“Father”) appeals from the order obliging him to pay child
support to C.J.F. (“Mother”) for two minor children. Father argues the court’s
allocation of the children’s additional expenses in proportion to the parties’
incomes, rather than by splitting them equally, was unjust. We affirm.
Father and Mother, formerly spouses, share equal custody of their two
minor children. The court ordered Father to pay child support starting in 2017.
In March 2020, Father filed a petition for modification of the existing support
order, alleging an increase in both Mother’s income and the children’s
expenses.
Following a support conference before a York County Domestic Relations
officer, the officer calculated the parties’ incomes and children’s expenses and
proposed a modified order of support. The court adopted the officer’s proposal,
and entered a corresponding modified support order on April 6, 2020. The
J-S51022-20
court found Father’s monthly net income was $4,473.18 and Mother’s monthly
net income was $3,325.68, and that the parties shared custody equally. The
court ordered Father to pay $532.71 per month for support, plus arrears. The
court also ordered Father to provide medical insurance, and to pay 57% of the
unreimbursed medical expenses that exceeded $250 per child, annually. The
order specified that it included Father’s costs for health insurance and
horseback riding lessons, and Mother’s costs for childcare and karate lessons,
which the parties agreed to have included in the order. Modified Support
Order, 4/6/20, at 3 of 4. The monthly support award ordered by the court
included a 57% contribution by Father toward these additional expenses. 1
Father requested a hearing de novo, and the court held the hearing.2
Father argued against the court’s allocation of the unreimbursed medical
____________________________________________
1 The copy of the order included in the certified record does not include a
breakdown of the support calculation. However, in the reproduced record
submitted by Father and unchallenged by Mother, Father included the
worksheets used by the conference officer to calculate support. These show
the monthly support obligation was comprised of $573.75 for basic child
support (representing an equalization of the parties’ incomes), an additional
$45.89 in childcare (57% of total childcare cost), reduced by $25.55 that
Father paid in medical insurance premiums (57% of cost of premiums), and
further reduced by $61.38 (the remaining portion of 57% of the cost of
horseback riding and karate lessons, after considering the portion Father paid
directly).
2 A transcript of the hearing is not included in the certified record. See also
Trial Court Opinion, 8/7/20, at 1-2 (noting Father failed to request a
transcript). The docket also reflects Father filed a memorandum of law on June
19, 2020, but the memorandum is not in the certified record. Because our
resolution of this appeal is not dependent upon the contents of the hearing
transcript or Father’s memo, we will not quash this appeal.
-2-
J-S51022-20
expenses and additional expenses in proportion to the parties’ net incomes,
considering that the court had ordered a basic support amount pursuant to
Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2) that equalized the parties’ incomes.
The court determined that it had allocated the expenses appropriately
according to Rule 1910.16-6. Trial Court Order, July 10, 2020, at 2, 4. The
court stated it “is constrained by the rules with regard to the equalization of
income and the allocation of additional expenses.” Id. at 3; see also Trial Ct.
Op. at 4 (“The Court advised the parties at the time of the de novo review
hearing that [it] would not make a decision which was contrary to the plain
language of the Rule. The calculation was made in line with the letter of the
Rule and is therefore correct”) (italics added). It also found “[t]here is no
indication that the expenses are not reasonable,” and that “Father does
indicate that it does not seem to affect an equitable determination.” Trial Ct.
Order at 2. The court reaffirmed the order of April 6, 2020. Id. at 3, 4.
Father appealed, and raises the following:
1. Is there a conflict between Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure 1910.16-4(c) and 1910.16-6?
2. Does the conflict between the Rules result in an obligor
shouldering a greater share of childcare expenses, health
insurance premiums, and other expenses of the children, despite
the parties sharing custody of the children equally, and despite
the equalization of incomes by adjustment of the child support
pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4(c)?
T.W.F.’s Br. at 3 (suggested answers omitted).
-3-
J-S51022-20
Mother argues that Father’s brief and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are
deficient because neither document explicitly alleges an abuse of discretion or
error of law and that we should therefore dismiss this appeal. We decline to
dismiss. The obvious point Father is making is that the trial court committed
an error of law by failing to construe the Rules of Civil Procedure in the manner
he suggests.
The standard of review governing an order for child support is abuse of
discretion. Hanrahan v. Bakker, 186 A.3d 958, 966 (Pa. 2018). “[A] court
abuses its discretion if it exercises judgment that is manifestly unreasonable
or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will as shown by the evidence
of record.” Id. We will only disturb a support order if “the trial court failed to
consider properly the requirements of the rules governing support actions.”
Id. To the extent the issues involve interpretation and application of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, which are questions of law, we employ a de novo standard
of review and plenary scope of review. Id.
Father does not specifically claim the court erred or abused its
discretion, but contends the court should have applied the Rules of Civil
Procedure differently when apportioning the children’s additional expenses
between the parties. Father argues the problem springs from a conflict
between Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2), which provides for the equalization of
incomes, and Rule 1910.16-6, which provides for the allocation of additional
expenses.
-4-
J-S51022-20
Father claims that in cases where the parties have similar incomes and
share equal custody, Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2) acts to provide for the equalization
of the parties’ incomes in order to put both parties on equal footing to provide
basic support for their children. Rule 1910.16-6 then provides for the court to
allocate the additional expenses in proportion to the parties’ incomes. Father
argues that when the parties share equal custody and the parties’ incomes
have been equalized under Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2), the court should allocate
any additional expenses under Rule 1910.16-6 in proportion to the parties’
equalized incomes – i.e., split 50-50. Father argues that allocating additional
expenses according to the pre-equalized incomes vitiates the purpose of Rule
1910.16-4(c)(2) and leads to an inequitable result.
Father argues that because the parties share equal custody, and the
basic support ordered by the court in this case equalizes the parties’ incomes,
Father should only have to pay for 50% of the children’s health insurance
premiums, childcare, and horseback riding and karate lessons, rather than
57%. Father argues the difference is costing him an additional $44 per month.
A trial court is obligated to award child support in accordance with the
Support Guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which are
contained in Rules 1910.16-1 through 1910.16-7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4322; Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1. When construing the
Rules of Civil Procedure, our object “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention
of the Supreme Court.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(a). However, “[w]hen the words of a
rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be
-5-
J-S51022-20
disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(b). Only
when the words are not explicit do we attempt to glean the intention of the
Supreme Court through consideration of the object of the rule or the
consequences of any particular interpretation. Pa.R.C.P. 127(c).
Subdivision (c)(2) of Rule 1910.16-4 controls the calculation of the basic
support obligation when children share equal time with their parents. See
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(2). This subdivision states, in relevant part, “If the
parties share custody equally and the [above] support calculation results in
the obligee receiving a larger share of the parties’ combined income, then the
court shall adjust the support obligation so that the combined monthly net
income is allocated equally between the two households.” Id. Subdivision
(c)(2) provides two examples where application of the normal support
calculation would result in the obligee obtaining more than half of the parties’
combined incomes, despite the parties sharing equal custody, and so the
subdivision is applied to equalize the parties’ incomes instead of utilizing the
normal support calculation.3 Subdivision (c)(2) specifies that its application
____________________________________________
3 Prior to the examples, Subdivision (c)(2) states in its entirety:
Without regard to which parent initiated the support action, when
the children spend equal time with their parents, the Part II
formula cannot be applied unless the obligor is the parent with the
higher income. An order shall not be entered requiring the parent
with the lower income to pay basic child support to the parent with
the higher income. However, this subdivision shall not preclude
the entry of an order requiring the parent with less income to
contribute to additional expenses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No.
-6-
J-S51022-20
“shall not preclude the entry of an order requiring the parent with less income
to contribute to additional expenses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-6.”
Id.
Rule 1910.16-6, in turn, controls the allocation of additional expenses
between the parties, “[i]f a basic support order is inappropriate under the facts
of the case.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6. Specific subdivisions of Rule 1910.16-6
provide for the allocation of the additional expenses including childcare
expenses, health insurance premiums, unreimbursed medical expenses,
mortgage payments, and “other needs,” such as private school tuition and
summer camp. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a)-(e).
Rule 1910.16-6 has a preamble that states that the court shall allocate
the additional expenses according to the parties’ proportionate incomes, after
accounting for the payment or receipt of spousal support or alimony pendente
lite:
____________________________________________
1910.16-6. Based upon the evidence presented, the trier of fact
may enter an order against either party without regard to which
party initiated the action. If the parties share custody equally and
the support calculation results in the obligee receiving a larger
share of the parties’ combined income, then the court shall adjust
the support obligation so that the combined monthly net income
is allocated equally between the two households. In those cases,
spousal support or alimony pendente lite shall not be awarded.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(2).
-7-
J-S51022-20
Except for the subdivisions (b)(4) and (e) expenses,[4] the trier-
of-fact shall calculate the parties’ proportionate share of the
additional expenses after adjusting the parties’ monthly net
income by the monthly spousal support or alimony pendente lite
amount received or paid, and then dividing each party’s adjusted
monthly net income by the parties’ combined monthly net income.
However, the trier-of-fact shall not adjust the parties’ monthly net
incomes when apportioning the expenses in child support only
cases.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6.
Based on a plain reading of the two Rules at issue, there is no conflict
in their simultaneous application. Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2) specifically states that
in addition to the basic support, the court may also allocate additional
expenses between the parties pursuant to Rule 1910.16-6. Rule 1910.16-6 in
turn provides that the court shall allocate these expenses in proportion to the
parties’ respective incomes. While Rule 1910.16-6 specifies that the parties’
incomes may be adjusted to account for the payment of spousal support or
alimony pendente lite, it does not permit an adjustment for the payment or
receipt of basic child support. It plainly states that “the trier-of-fact shall not
adjust the parties’ monthly net incomes when apportioning the expenses in
child support only cases.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6.
Thus, while the court ordered an amount of basic support that would
equalize the parties’ incomes pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4(c)(2), it correctly
applied Rule 1910.16-6 in apportioning the additional expenses based on the
____________________________________________
4 The expenses addressed by these subsections (health insurance premiums
where the obligee has minimal income, and mortgage payments) are not at
issue in this case.
-8-
J-S51022-20
parties’ pre-support incomes. As the court did not err or abuse its discretion
in applying the Guidelines, and Father did not make an argument that the
court should deviate from them,5 we affirm the order of support.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 02/17/2021
____________________________________________
5 See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5.
-9-