J. S 0 6 0 31 /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 E DA 20 19

: 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

– UIF SA Case. The Notice of Registration was a request from the State of Nevada to Lehigh County, Pennsylvania to registe r 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 Bu rn s [ (“ 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 par ental rights to his minor child, [] born [in] February [of] 2006.J . S06 0 31 /20

- 2

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

. Reich ley, ordered the Lehigh County Domest ic 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 hear ing 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 la w .” Simpson v. Sinclair

, 788 A.2d

1016, 1017 (Pa.Super. 2001), appea l denied

, 806 A.2d 862 (Pa.2002) ; s ee

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

, appeal

denied

, 829 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2003).J . S06 0 31 /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 contes ting 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 te rminated:

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 STIP ULATED AND AGREED that [Mother] shall have sole legal a nd sole physical custody of the minor child[]. [Father] shall not have any visitation or any contact whatsoever with said

min or 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 suppor t 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 thatJ . S06 0 31 /20

- 4

-

Father acknowledged that he did n ot 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 th e 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.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/24/2020