J. A09004/16

 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

S.P. :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

M.P.-S., : No. 1688 MDA 2015

:

 :

Appeal from the Order Entered September 3, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Domestic Relations Division at Nos. 99 DRO 1895,

PACSES No. 384101844

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

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 24, 2016

M.P.-S. appeals pro se from the September 3, 2015 order entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County that accepted the support 

master’s findings of fact and recommendations and denied all exceptions 

taken by appellant to the child support recommendation. We affirm.

The support master set forth the following:

On September 24, 2014, an Interim Order of Court 

was entered obligating [appellant] to pay $220.00 a 

month for the support of one minor child.

The support order was allocated at $200.00 support, 

$20.00 arrears.

On December 15, 2014, [appellant] filed for a 

modification of the September 24, 2014 Order.

On January 16, 2015, the Petition for Modification 

was dismissed stating the [appellant] did not provide 
J. A09004/16

- 2 -

viable verification to substantiate a change in the 

current support order.

[Appellant] appealed.

On April 27, 2015, a Master’s hearing was held 

where testimony was presented.

Pursuant to the Master’s Hearing in Support, a 

Master’s Recommendation was entered directing 

[appellant] to pay the amount of $386.00 per month 

in child support.

The Master’s Recommendation was entered directing 

[appellant] to pay $38.00 a month towards the 

arrears, if any exist, for a total support obligation of 

$424.00.

The Master’s Recommendation was entered directing 

[appellant] to provide medical insurance when it 

becomes available at a reasonable cost.

Any unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid 

as follows: 50 [percent] by [S.P. (“mother”)], 

50 [percent] by [appellant].

The Master’s Recommendation directed Lackawanna 

County Domestic Relations to recalculate the amount 

of arrears in this matter.

The Master’s Recommendation directed that all other 

terms of the Order dated September 24, 2014 not 

inconsistent with this Order shall remain in effect.

The effective date of the Order entered pursuant to 

the Master’s Recommendation is January 16, 2015.

[Appellant] filed exceptions to the Master’s 

Recommendation.

Master’s findings of fact, 7/15/15 at 1-2 (paragraph numbers omitted).
J. A09004/16

- 3 -

The master summarized the testimony from the April 27, 2015 support 

hearing as follows:

[Mother] testified that she lives in Scranton with her 

husband and two (2) children.

She has been working at Interim Health Care for the 

past 4 years.

She currently is working 25 hours a week because 

one of her clients passed away. Prior to her client 

passing[,] she was working more hours weekly.

She makes $11.00 an hour at this position.

She testified that at this time her husband is not 

working.

She lives in Section 8 housing and pays $250.00 a 

month in rent and approximately $1,000.00 in 

utilities.

She receives approximately $110.00 a month in food 

stamps.

[Mother] testified that she has joint custody with 

[appellant][;] however, [appellant] never followed 

through with the custody agreement.

[Mother] testified that her son slept over [at 

appellant’s] house every once in a while.

. . . .

[Appellant] appealed because he and [mother] had a 

verbal agreement that he would pay $200.00 a 

month in child support and now that Domestics 

added healthcare[,] he is basically paying 

approximately $400.00 a month and he cannot 

afford to pay both.
J. A09004/16

- 4 -

In the beginning of the hearing[,] [appellant] 

testified that he resides in Morganville, New Jersey 

with his mother and his children.

Later on during the hearing[,] [appellant] testified 

that he resides with [] the mother of three of his 

children.

[Appellant] testified that he has shared custody of 

the minor we are here about for support.

[Appellant] testified that he is employed at [a 

trucking company] as a driver and is paid [42 cents] 

a mile and works approximately 60-70 hours a week.

Before his position at [that trucking company,] he 

was employed at [another trucking company] and 

was being compensated by the mile.

He did not provide any other income information 

although the Master did try and obtain a more exact 

number.

Additionally, when asked to produce his income 

taxes, he testified that he hasn’t filed taxes in 

3 years.

[Appellant] testified that he lives in a home and 

“shares bills” with his mother.

He testified that he gives his mother approximately 

$1,000.00 a month for utilities but did not provide 

any documentation nor could he tell me the amount 

of each utility per month.

He testified that he pays $300.00 a month for child 

support for other children, which he is appealing 

now.

He has another child support case pending which 

he[,] as of the date of the hearing[,] was not paying 

support on.
J. A09004/16

- 5 -

[Appellant] testified that he isn’t paying any support 

as of the hearing date on the case he is appealing.

[Appellant] did not provide any documentation that 

he is in fact paying support.

Contradictory to his prior testimony, he testified that 

he is residing with his wife and children.

He testified that his wife does not work and that she 

was receiving public assistance before but is now in 

the [process] of transferring it.

When asked by the Master how much his wife is 

receiving in food stamps[,] he was unable to answer 

the question.

He testified that at one point he was paying $300.00 

to his wife for the care of the children, but is no 

longer.

[Appellant] attempted to submit copies of two court 

dates from other jurisdictions which [mother] 

objected to and the Master sustained the objection.

He did not [provide] any current support orders from 

any other State or City as evidence.

[Appellant] testified that he cannot pay $200.00 for 

child support and also pay for medical insurance for 

his minor child.

He [bases] his argument on [the] fact that he is 

Court Ordered from Michigan to pay child support 

and Court Ordered from New Jersey to pay child 

support there.

[Appellant] offered no concrete proof of support 

obligations in any other jurisdiction other than 

hearing notices.

Id. at 2-4 (paragraph numbers omitted).

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
J. A09004/16

- 6 -

Should have the Master denied entering other child 

support orders [into] evidence?

Should the Master practice from the bench?

Did the Master [sic] finding facts [sic] match the 

testimony given on April 27, 2015?

Did the Master take into consideration [appellant’s] 

children that resided with him?

Should have the Master honor [sic] the agreement 

[mother] and [appellant] agreed too [sic]?

Did the Master show a bias towards [appellant]?

Appellant’s brief at 2.

When evaluating a support order, this 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 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. 

In addition, we note that the duty to support one’s 

child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is 

to promote the child’s best interests.

Rich v. Rich, 967 A.2d 400, 405 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations omitted).

We defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations with respect to 

witnesses who have appeared before it because that court has had the 

opportunity to observe their demeanor. Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630, 

644 (Pa.Super. 2013).
J. A09004/16

- 7 -

Moreover, this court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant 

fails to substantially conform to the briefing requirements set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 

912 A.2d 329, 335 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations omitted). Appellate 

arguments that fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and 

arguments that are not appropriately developed, including those where a 

party fails to cite to any authority to support a contention, are waived. Id.

at 336 (citation omitted).

Here, appellant advances no legal argument that the support master 

abused its discretion by misapplying the law, exercising its discretion in a 

manner that lacked reason, or failing to follow legal procedure. Rather, a 

review of the “reasoning” section of appellant’s brief demonstrates that the 

issues appellant raises focus on what he alleges is the master’s failure to 

consider appellant’s personal hardships when it fashioned its support 

recommendation. Those complaints invite us to reweigh the master’s 

credibility determinations. We decline appellant’s invitation to do so because 

that is not our role. Finally, with respect to appellant’s assertion of error 

regarding the master’s evidentiary ruling concerning other child support 

orders, it was critical for appellant to produce documentary evidence of 

other support and expense obligations in order to successfully pursue a 

modification of support. Appellant failed to provide such evidence.

Order affirmed.
J. A09004/16

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/24/2016