V.G. v. K.G. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A22009-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 V.G. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. K.G. Appellant No. 82 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order December 12, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 2010-406-S BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., ALLEN, J., and MUNDY, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 27, 2013 Appellant, K.G. ( Father ), appeals from the order entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, which declined to implement the hearing officer s assessment of Father s child support obligation for his son, M.G. ( Child ), based on Father s present income, and assessed Father s support obligation based on his earning capacity. We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.1 ____________________________________________ 1 Father timely filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2013. On January 14, 2013, the court ordered Father to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Father timely complied. J-A22009-13 Father raises four issues for our review: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO REDUCE FATHER S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION AFTER HE LOST HIS JOB, WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT HIS REDUCTION IN INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY? DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY IMPUTING AN EARNING CAPACITY TO FATHER WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN HIS ACTUAL EARNINGS, WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HIS REDUCTION IN INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY? IF THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FATHER S REDUCTION IN INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY, DID IT NEVERTHELESS ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY IMPUTING AN EARNING CAPACITY TO FATHER OTHER THAN HIS CURRENT EARNINGS WHEN HE MITIGATED HIS INCOME LOSS BY A CONTINUING SEARCH FOR HIGHER EARNING EMPLOYMENT AND BY TAKING INTERIM LOWER PAYING EMPLOYMENT? IF THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FATHER S REDUCTION IN INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY, DID IT NEVERTHELESS ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT HE WILLFULLY FAILED TO OBTAIN OR MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT APPLY FOR JOBS OUTSIDE HIS ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA? (Father s Brief at 9). The relevant standard of review is: 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 -2- J-A22009-13 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. Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850, 854 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Brickus v. Dent, 5 A.3d 1281, 1284 (Pa.Super. 2010)). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Pamela A. Ruest, we conclude Father s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 1, 2013, at 2-3) (finding: Father s efforts to obtain appropriate employment were inadequate; having acquired only parttime employment with one company, Father s job search efforts seemed to fall off after he started working there; Father s most recent job search was confined to small geographic area; Father did not consider employment in other states, even though Father has relocated on multiple occasions to secure past employment; Father s responsibilities to his new family in New York do not negate Father s continuing responsibilities to Child; court did not believe that Father, given his level of education and work experience, and after purportedly searching for months, could find only one part-time position earning $14.00/hour; Father willfully failed to obtain or maintain appropriate employment; thus, Father s support payments should be based on his earning capacity rather than present income; additionally, under -3- J-A22009-13 factors utilized to determine earning capacity, Father s ample education, work experience and earning history are not in dispute; for approximately ten years prior to his most recent part-time position, Father earned between $95,000.00 and $110,000.00 per year; record does not reflect that Father has any health condition to prevent him from full time work or warrant reduction in his support obligation; Father s support obligation also does not warrant reduction based on child care responsibilities because Father spends only ten days per year with Child; court s determination that Father s earning capacity is $90,000.00 was reasonable).2 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Order affirmed. *JUDGE MUNDY CONCURS IN THE RESULT. ____________________________________________ 2 Additionally, Father failed to explain at the support hearing the circumstances surrounding the job loss precipitating his petition for a support reduction even though Appellee, V.G., had alleged Father was terminated as a result of his own actions. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1) (stating: When either party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, changes job occupations or changes employment status to pursue an education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect on the support obligation ). -4- J-A22009-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/27/2013 -5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
