Case Title: Yerkes v. Yerkes (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-95-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT LYDIA A. YERKES, Appellee, v. KEITH A. YERKES, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 151 MAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered July 3, 2001 at No. 1220 MDA 1999, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered May 17, 1999 at No. 2972 of 1992 782 A.2d 1068 (table) SUBMITTED: February 26, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN Decided: May 30, 2003 I join the majority opinion, which properly holds that, "incarceration, standing alone, is not a 'material and substantial change in circumstances' providing sufficient grounds for modification or termination of a child support order." Yerkes v. Yerkes, 151 MAP 2001, at 13 (footnote omitted). Although I completely agree with this statement, I cannot agree that incarceration is not a substantial change of circumstance; it clearly is, and we should not, and need not, avoid saying so. We need not because the heart of the matter is the second half of the phrase, not the first. The proper question is whether this is a change that allows an existing support obligation to be modified or terminated. While incarceration should be acknowledged to be a significant change of circumstance, it may not be grounds for modification or termination of a child support order, as a matter of public policy.1 1 Courts have the independent authority to discern public policy in the absence of legislation. Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231, 1237 (Pa. 1998). "It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring." Lurie v. Republican Alliance, 192 A.2d 367, 370 (Pa. 1963) (quoting Mamlin v. Genoe, 17 A.2d 407, 409 (Pa. 1941); Commonwealth ex rel. Fox v. Swing, 186 A.2d 24, 27 (Pa. 1962) (Bell, J., concurring)). [J-95-2002] - 2