PA Child Support Deviation New Spouses Income Affects Child Support

Pennsylvania Child Support law allows for the courts to award amounts above or below the standard guidelines. This is called deviation. The law provides for deviation from guidelines when taking into consideration factors such as unusual needs or fixed obligations; support obligations to children from previous relationships; other income in the household; the relative assets and liabilities of the parties; out of pocket medical expenses; and other reasons spelled out in Rule 1910.16-5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Court.

While such deviations are not common, a ruling from Pennsylvania’s Superior Court last year illustrates how this can work. In J.P.D. v. W. E. D., 114 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2015), the Superior Court confirmed a lower court ruling that a Father needed to double support payments for his child because of his new wife’s income.

More typically, a new spouse’s income does not play a leading role in support calculations. In this instance, though, the Father, who claimed he made about $20,000 per year as a programmer, married a new spouse who took home a net of $1 million per year. That discrepancy most certainly caught the eye of his ex-spouse, as well as the Hearing Officer, and later, the Judge. Through several Conferences, Exceptions and one Appeal, the parties argued their case. The Superior Court eventually affirmed a deviation from the guidelines, ordering the father, who was paying $665 (the calculated support based on both parents’ incomes), to now pay $1,365 per month in child support – more than double his previous payments.

Two factors are key here. First, the huge change in the Father’s household income and expenses, to the point that the Court decided the Father’s entire personal income was now available for child support. Pennsylvania Support Calculations allow for reasonable living expenses for each parent before determining the amount of child support. In this case, by the Father’s own testimony, he had NO living expenses.

The second factor was likely the Father’s own testimony, and his callous disregard for detail. For instance, he testified he did not pay for his own living expenses and could not even say what they might be, since his new wife opened all the mail and took care of all the bills. He further testified that he leased a Cadillac, traveled and vacationed frequently, and that his new wife owned the house where they lived as well as a vacation home and undeveloped property.

His ex-wife, the child’s mother, was a teacher with a known published income of around $50,000 per year.

By affirming the lower court’s order, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting support allocations, since even the new child support amount was less than 37% of the Father’s personal net income (which experts tallied more accurately at around $45,000).

Again, deviations from Support Guidelines are rare, but they do happen.