The following documents are actual briefs which have been filed and heard in PA Courts. Please feel free to take what you want, but remember I am not an attorney, nor do I give legal advice.
If you have comments, ideas or suggestions, Feel Free to Join the
Pennsylvania Parenthood Initiative
at papi@abs-comptech.com
We are always interested in NEW Members which Support the Simple Concept that Children Deserve access to BOTH Parents.
If you are interested in Promoting Change in Pennsylvania, then Please visit the
Pennsylvania Legislators' Web Sites and let them know just how you feel, and what your want to see promoted.
But remember, if you want results, Please write them a Letter, along with your E-Mail message. Letters get better results.
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES UNCONSOLIDATED PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES
Domestic Relations Rules & Child Support Guidelines for PA
Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee
Here's your chance to help Mold The Child Support Guidelines
RULE 1910.16-3 SUPPORT GUIDELINES. [FORMULA] BASIC CHILD SUPPORT SCHEDULE
RULE 1910.16-4 SUPPORT GUIDELINES. [DEVIATION] CALCULATION OF SUPPORT OBLIGATION. FORMULA
CRC model Child Support Guideline
^^^^^ Updated Info vvvvv
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 03:40:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Roger F. Gay"
Support
The Melzer
v. Witzberger Case, 505 Pa. 462; 480 A.2d 991 - for which we all model our Child Support today on.
Little
v. Little, 657 A.2d 12 , 441 Pa.Super. 185 - Support for the Non-Custodial Mother, DENIED - with Shared
Physical Custody, Upheld.
Fee
v. Fee, 344 Pa. Super. 276; 496 A.2d 793 - Cross Appeals for Support and determination of actual expenses
applied for the child - this almost looks as Ugly as my case!
Warner
v. Pollock, 644 A.2d 747, 434 Pa.Super. 551 (Pa.Super. 1994) - support
procedure and local rules. The opinion supports the right to de novo hearings
when exceptions are taken.
Custody
Respondent's exceptions to Master's recommendations , This is a boilplate template for:
The respondent, John Doe, respectfully files the following Exceptions to the Master's (or Permanent Hearing Officers) Recommendation and represents that:
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, This is a boilplate template for
Custody Modification, of course!
Visitation with Children
Texas
Laws that a member of the PAPI Mailing wishes to use for Visitation
Guidlelines.
Contempt of Court
Here is a contempt of custody
case where mother found in contempt and primary custody transfered to dad.
Upheld by Superior Court.
No. 01782 Pittsburgh 1993 Date Filed: August 22, 1994
PFA
Jurisdiction
IFP
Federal Lawsuits
Christopher Robin's Federal Lawsuit
Testimony concerning the Parental Alienation Syndrome
has been admitted in courts of law in many states and countries
Richard A. Gardner, M.D.
(Document last updated 8/30/99; 40 items)
From the American Coalition for Fathers and Children
If you are interested in child support litigation, the following case cite may be helpful.
"The power to dispose of income is the equivalent of ownership of it."
(Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940)"
This could help in separating out maintenance and child support, which have
become obfuscated in recent years.
It has been posted to the ACFC website
or by going to: http://www.acfc.org/html/legal.htm
scroll down the page to the child support section find the case cite.
Our thanks to Roger Gay for locating this valuable fathers rights case
cite. He writes:
"There is another case that is cited that I must take a note on. In
developing "New Equations for Child Support and Spousal Maintenance
....", one must be able to keep both feet solidly on two different
pieces of ground at the same time - one that says there is a clear
distinction to be made between child support and spousal support, and
the other that the mother recieves her income, child support, and
spousal support, and it all goes into her bank account and becomes part
of her wealth. I deal with this tricky problem mathematically, but
there is an interesting case cite that I can imagine using a few times
in the future.
ACFC
PENNSYLVANIA CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES or Title IV-D Funding
By Bill Glassmire
I am sure most members are like myself and have often pondered the subject of what rules, regulations, or formulas govern our child support process, here in Pennsylvania. Well, I have been doing some digging and would like to share with fellow members some of the information I found on this subject. Also, I would welcome your input on this. The issue of child support is a complex and often convoluted subject and any corrections and/or additions would be appreciated.
Support Guidelines have been adopted in all 50 states and the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This process was initiated by two pieces of federal legislation, the Child Support Amendments of 1984 (these are amendments to the Social Security Act)and the Family Support Act of 1988. The states and territories quickly developed their guidelines so as to comply with the 1984 amendments and not lose federal funding they received through the Title IV-D program. AH, now we must digest another complicated monster, Title IV-D funding.
In the 70's there was an effort in congress to attempt to control the growth of welfare funding to the states. It was determined that a large portion of this funding went to single parent households, and the states should attempt to collect more from the "Absent Parent". (this is the title given to non-custodial parents) Title IV-D funding was enacted in 1975 and attempts to do just that. First, 66% of the cost incurred in child support enforcement and collection is reimbursed by the federal government. This reimbursement is for both AFDC (Aide to Families with Dependent Children) and Non-AFDC cases. AFDC cases are families receiving welfare grants. There is also an incentive program set up to entice the jurisdictions to enhance there collection efforts. In 1989, Pennsylvania received $13 million under this incentive program and all but $1.2 million was passed onto the counties. With regard to the monthly welfare grants, 57% is paid for by the federal government and the remaining 43% by the state. The child support collected is handled in the following fashion; 1) the first $50 is passed onto the recipient of the grant, 2) after this is deducted, the federal government receives 57% and 3) the state receives the remaining 43%. The incentive program mentioned earlier is taken from the 57% received by the Feds, it is approximately 10% of this figure.
Now, if your children are receiving welfare through an AFDC grant to their custodial parent, the state is the plaintiff in the support matter. The Court of Common Pleas in your county hears the matter and issues a determination, a support order. It is my understanding that our courts are to be an objective examiner in these and other matters, but the question arises `how can our courts make an objective and independent decision when they benefit proportionally from the amount they order'? It is rumored that through all these reimbursement policies there are a few states profiting from child support collection, and more are to follow.
We also must consider the size of the support "industry". The support bill for Pennsylvania is over 1 billion dollars annually. Now consider the number of jobs that are dependent on this support "industry", Philadelphia has in excess of 350 staff members in Family Court alone. The size and numbers are mind boggling.
Now lets return to the issue of guidelines. There are four guideline models used in the 54 jurisdictions; Income Shares; Melson-Delaware; flat percentage; and varying percentage. The income shares model is the one used in Pennsylvania and is the most commonly used in all the jurisdictions.(thirty-three jurisdictions use guidelines based on the income shares model) This model is based on two assumptions 1) that the support available to children should be based on the combined income of both parents and 2) that children should receive the same proportion of parental income that they would have received if the parents lived together. Proponents of this model support these assumptions with studies that they claim show that the cost for raising children tends be a consistent portion of household expenses and that this portion changes with the level of household income. My question is whose household and whose income. An intact family's expenses are certainly different from a separated family. I agree that the expenses for children do increase as income increase, but when combined income is used and no consideration for separate households, there is a enormous flaw in these assumptions.
Guidelines are adopted in each jurisdiction either by Administrative rule, Court rule, or Statute. In Pennsylvania the guidelines where adopted by our Judiciary and mandated in July 1984 by our State Supreme Court in Meltzer v. Witsberger ,505 Pa. 462; 480 A.2d 991 (1984) The printed guidelines (some refer to them as grids or charts) are base upon the Meltzer formula, but these were not distributed to the counties until September 1989 when Act 81 was passed by our state legislature. During this period, July 1984 when Meltzer was handed down and September 1989 when the guidelines where distributed, it appears each county used its own formulas based on varying guideline models. It is interesting to note that Appeals taken on support orders during this period where remanded if the Meltzer formula was not used in calculating the support obligation. I would guess there are hundreds of thousands of support orders issued during this period that were not appealed. Were they legal? (I have spoken to many people who are still paying per orders issued during this time, and there is a large number whose orders are higher than what the guidelines call for - some as high as 35% )
Another important variation between guideline models is the income base used. There are three forms used; gross income, adjusted gross income, and net income. Pennsylvania uses the net income base, whereas all taxes are deducted from the gross income.
The exclusion of taxes is a consistent practice in all counties, but other allowable deduction such as medical insurance for the children, union dues, and life and disability insurance passed on by employer's are often not deducted from gross income as they should be.
I hope that you've found these references useful, as I did. Although I successfully represnted myself in Exceptions for support, I certainly cannot guarantee you the same success which I had.
If you have comments or suggestions, email the Pennsylvania Parenthood Initiative at papi@abs-comptech.com
This page created with Netscape Navigator Gold