Carter, T. v. Carter, T. (dissenting memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A14004-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TRACEY C. CARTER, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TROY L. CARTER, Appellant No. 3817 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered November 23, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 009807300 PACSES No. 363004162 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SHOGAN, J. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2017 Because I would conclude that the trial court’s findings are not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented, I respectfully dissent. For example, the court’s determination that the evidence supported a finding that Troy II could not work at any profitable employment is unreasonable in light of the fact that he was apparently successful in taking computer classes. Also, the fact that Troy II needs assistance in traveling and would only consider an office job is not enough to support the court’s decision. Additionally, Mother’s testimony about Troy II’s physical problems was not supported by any expert testimony or report.1 Therefore, I would conclude ____________________________________________ Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted at the master’s hearing, namely, the psychiatric reports, were not authenticated and should not have 1 (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-A14004-17 that the court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by determining that Mother/Troy II carried their burden of rebutting the presumption of non-support. Furthermore, I note that no evidence was presented by Mother/Troy II that was directed at proving the availability of employment at a supporting wage. See Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403, 409 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating “the test is whether the child is physically and mentally able to engage in profitable employment and whether employment is available to that child at a supporting wage”). Accordingly, I must dissent. (Footnote Continued) _______________________ been allowed into the record. However, since no objection was raised at the time, we cannot rely on this error. -2-
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.
