Title: Yerkes v. Yerkes (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

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 on July 3, 2001 at No. 1220 MDA 1999, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Domestic Relations Division, entered May 17, 1999 at No. 2972 of 1992 SUBMITTED: February 26, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR Decided: May 30, 2003 Although I see merit in the majority’s approach, I would endorse the Superior Court’s, which reposed substantial discretion in the trial court to assess the fact of incarceration as one factor in determining whether to grant a petition for modification or termination of child support, particularly in the absence of a specific legislative directive otherwise. See Leasure v. Leasure, 378 Pa. Super. 613, 616-17, 549 A.2d 225, 226-27 (1988) (stating that the trial court should consider, inter alia, the length of incarceration and the assets of the incarcerated parent in reviewing a petition for modification or suspension of child support payments);1 see also Kelley v. Kelley, 444 Pa. Super. 286, 1 Although some jurisdictions have viewed Leasure as embracing the complete justification rule, see, e.g., Halliwell v. Halliwell, 741 A.2d 638, 645 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1999); In re Marriage of Thurmond, 962 P.2d 1064, 1070-71 (Kan. 1998), others have (continued...) 288, 663 A.2d 785, 786 (1995) (holding that the fact of incarceration is “but one of several factors” that the trial court must consider in deciding whether to suspend support payments). In any event, given the particular circumstances of this case, I find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for termination. (...continued) more appropriately categorized it as adopting the one factor rule. See In re Marriage of Burbridge, 738 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ill. App. 2000); In re Marriage of Hamilton, 857 P.2d 542, 544 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). [J-95-2002] - 2