J. S06031/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ALLISON P. BURNS :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

DAVID B. THOMAS, : No. 2864 EDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Order Entered August 28, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Domestic Relations Division at No. DR-07-01312

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 24, 2020

David B. Thomas (“Father”) appeals from the August 28, 2019 order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, denying his objection 

to registration of a foreign support order and confirming registration. We 

affirm.

The trial court set forth the following:

On or about April 29, 2019, [Father] received a Notice 

of Registration of Order – UIFSA Case. The Notice of 

Registration was a request from the State of Nevada 

to Lehigh County, Pennsylvania to register and 

enforce their [o]rder of August 20, 2013, and filed 

November 1, 2013. Subsequent to this [o]rder, a 

[s]tipulation and [o]rder dated September 1, 2015 

was entered into between [Father] and [] 

Allison Burns [(“Mother”)]. The [s]tipulation and 

[o]rder provides, in part, that there shall be no child 

support obligation and no arrears owed by [Father]

contingent upon the termination of his parental rights 

to his minor child, [] born [in] February [of] 2006. 
J. S06031/20

- 2 -

Then, on May 15, 2019, [] the Honorable Douglas G. 

Reichley, ordered the Lehigh County Domestic 

Relations case closed based upon the [s]tipulation and 

[o]rder terminating [Father]’s support obligations.

However, recognizing and determining that the 

condition of the termination of [Father]’s parental

rights to his minor child was not met or verified, Judge 

Reichley, by [o]rder of June 7, 2019, vacated the 

[o]rder of May 15, 2019.

Thereafter, [Father] filed timely objections to the 

Notice of Registration and Order. A hearing was held 

on August 28, 2019.

Trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, 10/1/19 at 1-2.

Father filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court did not order Father 

to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), but the trial judge did file a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Father raises the following issue for our review: 

Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law in

denying [Father’s] [o]bjection to [r]egistration of [the 

f]oreign [s]upport [o]rder?

Father’s brief at 3.

“In reviewing a decision concerning the registration of a foreign support 

order, our standard of review is whether the trial court manifestly abused its 

discretion or committed an error of law.” Simpson v. Sinclair, 788 A.2d 

1016, 1017 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 806 A.2d 862 (Pa.2002); see 

also Casiano v. Casiano, 815 A.2d 638, 641 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal 

denied, 829 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2003).
J. S06031/20

- 3 -

“A party contesting the registration of a foreign support order has the

burden of proving” in relevant part, that the “order has been vacated, 

suspended or modified by a later order” or that the “alleged controlling order 

is not the controlling order. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §7607(a), (a)(3) & (8). In order to 

obtain relief, the contesting party must present “evidence establishing a full 

or partial defense.” Id. at (b).

Here, Father contends that the following clauses of the stipulation 

caused him to believe his parental rights were terminated:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the 

intention of [Father] is to have his parental rights to 

the minor child terminated. It is the intention of 

[Mother] to agree that [Father’s] parental rights will 

be terminated.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that 

[Mother] shall have sole legal and sole physical 

custody of the minor child[]. [Father] shall not have 

any visitation or any contact whatsoever with said 

minor child;

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that based 

upon this agreement, as of August 1, 2015, and 

contingent upon the termination of [Father’]s

parental rights, there shall be no child support 

obligation from [Father] to [Mother].

Stipulation and order, 9/1/17 at 1-2 (emphasis added).

Clearly, however, the stipulation states that the termination of Father’s 

child support obligation is “contingent upon the termination of [his] parental 

rights[.]” Id. at 2. Moreover, Father’s belief does not constitute evidence 

that Father terminated his parental rights. Indeed, the record reflects that 
J. S06031/20

- 4 -

Father acknowledged that he did not terminate his parental rights and that it 

was his intent to go back to Nevada and do so. (Notes of testimony, 8/28/19 

at 7.) Father further acknowledged his understanding that if he does not 

terminate his parental rights, he will be responsible for the foreign support 

order in Pennsylvania. (Id.)

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly determined the 

stipulation and order was not a defense to the registration of the Nevada 

support order. Appellant’s challenge to registration must fail.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

JosephD.Seletyn,Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/24/2020