J-A09020-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHRISTINE LUKUS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GERALD S. LEPRE, JR.

Appellant No. 1690 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County

Civil Division at No(s): 2011-DR-16

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED MAY 23, 2016

Appellant Gerald S. Lepre, Jr. (“Father”) appeals from the order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County terminating the child 

support owed by him as of June 12, 2014, rather than in January 2014, and 

ordering that Father be responsible for payment of outstanding court costs 

related to the petition. We affirm.

Following the appeal of a prior court of common pleas order, this Court 

provided the following factual and procedural background:

D.L.S. (“Mother”) and Father are the biological parents of 

M.L. (“Child”). [Christine Lukus (“Grandmother”)] is 

Father’s mother. On December 27, 2006, Mother obtained 

primary physical custody of Child. Thereafter, Mother and 

Child’s relationship deteriorated. In 2010, Mother allowed 

Child to reside with Grandmother and Grandmother’s 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A09020-15

- 2 -

husband at their Susquehanna County home, where she 

remains.1

1

In January 2011, Father filed a petition for 

modification, seeking primary physical custody of 

Child. On July 16, 2012, the court denied Father’s 

petition. Significantly, the court determined the best 

interests of Child mandated that Mother maintain 

primary physical custody. The court also announced 

its approval of Mother’s decision to enter into a 

temporary arrangement with Grandmother, allowing 

Grandmother to provide for Child’s custodial needs. 

On March 6, 2013, this Court affirmed the order 

granting primary physical custody to Mother. See 

G.S.L., Jr. v. D.L.S., No. 1486 MDA 2012, 

unpublished memorandum at 9 (Pa.Super. filed 

March 6, 2013).

Memorandum, C.L. v. G.S.L., Jr., 769 MDA 2012, 1578 MDA 2012 

(Pa.Super. filed Apr. 24, 2013). In 2011, Grandmother filed a complaint for 

support against Father. The trial court adopted the master’s 

recommendation that Father pay child support for Daughter to Grandmother. 

This Court affirmed. Id.

On February 6, 2014, Father filed a petition to terminate child support, 

alleging Daughter reached the age of 18 in January 2014, and, therefore, 

Father should no longer be obligated to pay child support. Brief In Support 

of Petition for Review, filed Feb. 6, 2014.1

____________________________________________

1 Grandmother filed a petition to modify the existing support order, which 

she withdrew at the September 16, 2015 hearing. N.T., 9/16/2015, at 2.
J-A09020-15

- 3 -

On September 16, 2015, the trial court ordered that the child support 

obligation was terminated effective June 12, 2014 and ordered that Father 

pay any outstanding court costs related to his petition.2

On September 25, 2015, Father filed a timely notice of appeal. The 

trial court did not order, and Father did not file, a concise statement of 

reasons relied on for appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 1925(b). The 

trial court did not issue a 1925(a) opinion.

____________________________________________

2 The Brief of the Susquehanna County Domestic Relations Department 

explains the delay in this case as follows:

In the instant matter, it is imperative that this Honorable 

Court be aware that the pendency of the Petition to 

terminate Support in excess of one and one-half (1.5) 

years was a result of certain circumstances, specifically a 

scheduling order on the Petition had to be forwarded to a 

specially presiding judge due to numerous recusals by 

prior judges, and by the time the scheduling order was 

received, the date scheduled had passed and the matter 

had to be rescheduled to a future date. By the time that 

order was received there was pending a second federal 

civil rights lawsuit filed by Appellant against numerous 

defendants, including but not limited to undersigned 

counsel, the Susquehanna County Domestic Relations 

Department and employees of the Department, and 

Appellee, with underlying issues as to administration of the 

child support matter and determinations of the Court. As 

such, there was no action taken in the matter pending 

resolution of the federal civil rights lawsuit. Upon the 

dismissal of the federal civil rights matter as to the 

defendants including undersigned counsel, the 

Susquehanna and employees of the Department, and 

receiving an appropriately dated scheduling order, the 

Appellant’s Petition was promptly heard.

Appellee’s Brief at 3 n.1.
J-A09020-15

- 4 -

Appellant raises the following claims on appeal:

I. Whether the court below committed an error of law, 

abused its discretion or violated constitutional rights when 

it determined an adult was entitled to child support on and 

past the adult[’]s eighteenth (18th) birthday?

II. Whether the court below committed an error of law, 

abused its discretion or violated constitutional rights when 

it failed to refund any overpayments in child support?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

Father’s first issue maintains the trial court erred when it terminated 

the child support effective on Child’s graduation from high school, rather 

than from her eighteenth birthday.

This Court’s standard of review of orders addressing child support is as 

follows:

[T]his Court may only reverse the trial court’s 

determination where the order cannot be sustained on any 

valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad 

discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the 

discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support 

order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of 

judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides 

or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown 

by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the 

product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion 

has been abused.

Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.Super.2009) (quoting Samii v. 

Samii, 847 A.2d 691, 694 (Pa.Super.2004)).

Although Child attained the age of 18 in January 2014, she did not 

graduate from high school until June 12, 2014. 

Pennsylvania law provides that “[p]arents are liable for support of their 

children who are unemancipated and 18 years of age or younger.” 23 
J-A09020-15

- 5 -

Pa.C.S. § 4321(2). Further, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 

provide that “the domestic relations section shall administratively terminate 

the child support charging order without further proceedings on the last to 

occur of the date the last child reaches eighteen (18) or graduates from high 

school.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.19(e)(4). 

Appellant maintains that the trial court erred when it terminated the 

support obligation on the date of graduation, because the statute does not 

require payment of child support following the child’s 18th birthday, 

regardless of whether he or she has graduated from high school. Appellant’s 

Brief at 9-10. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, however, has found that 

a child is entitled to support until he or she graduates from high school. 

Blue v. Blue, 616 A.2d 628, 633 (Pa.1992) (“notwithstanding a child 

reaching majority at age 18, a parental duty of support is owed until a child 

reaches 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs later.”). 

In Blue, the Court found:

A basic education as guaranteed by our Commonwealth 

constitution must be available to all Commonwealth 

citizens. In many instances, high school students reach 

their 18th birthday prior to graduation from high school. It 

would make no sense to terminate a support order while a 

child is attending high school. The rigors of high school are 

difficult enough without worrying about how a child is 

going to support himself for the remaining days of his high 

school education. Therefore, notwithstanding a child 

reaching majority at age 18, a parental duty of support is 

owed until a child reaches 18 or graduates from high 

school, whichever event occurs later. This will ensure that 

children have a minimum education in order to prepare 

them for the challenges of life.
J-A09020-15

- 6 -

616 A.2d at 632-33.3

Further, this Court has found that a child attending high school is not 

emancipated, without additional evidence to support a finding of 

emancipation. Castaldi v. Castaldi-Veloric, 993 A.2d 903, 911 

(Pa.Super.2010) (18-year-old daughter not emancipated where she had not 

graduated high school, and there was no evidence she lived separately from 

Mother, had the ability to support herself, or expressed a desire to live 

independently of Mother); Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin, 921 

A.2d 1246, 1247-48 (Pa.Super.2007) (fact that child still attended high 

school was sufficient to establish he was incapable of supporting himself). 

The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding that Father’s 

obligation to pay child support ceased upon Child’s graduation from high 

school, not upon her eighteenth birthday.

Father next maintains that the court erred, abused its discretion, or 

violated his constitutional rights when it failed to refund any overpayments 

of child support. Appellant’s Brief at 10. 

The Domestic Relations Department maintains that during the 

pendency of Father’s petition, it held support payments in abeyance. If 

____________________________________________

3 The Court in Blue addressed a son’s request for support payments from his 

father for his college education. 616 A.2d at 629. The Court found the 

father did not have an obligation to pay for his son’s post-secondary school 

expenses, which it found the father did not owe because the Pennsylvania 

state legislature had not yet enacted a statute addressing whether there was 

a support obligation for post-secondary expenses. Id. at 632.
J-A09020-15

- 7 -

Father has not been refunded any support paid following Child’s June 12, 

2014 graduation date, he is entitled to a refund. The Department shall remit 

any overpayments, beyond the June 12, 2014, date to Appellant.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/23/2016