J-A10012-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

R.L.H. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

H.S.

Appellee No. 1371 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Domestic Relations at No(s): 01041 SA 2007

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2015

R.L.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered in the York County 

Court of Common Pleas directing the conference officer to recalculate the 

child support obligations of H.S. (“Father”). We affirm. 

In its July 14, 2014 opinion, the trial court accurately sets forth the 

relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

On July 15, 2014, the trial court ordered the conference officer to 

recalculate support obligations. On August 13, 2014, Mother timely filed a 

notice of appeal. On August 18, 2014, the court ordered Mother to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). On August 22, 2014, the trial court granted Mother’s request for 

an extension of time and allotted her an additional thirty (30) days to file her 
J-A10012-15

- 2 -

Rule 1925(b) statement.1 On October 7, 2014, Mother timely filed her Rule 

1925(b) statement. On October 8, 2014, the court issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) and incorporated by reference its July 14, 

2014 opinion.

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

[WHETHER] THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED BY 

HOLDING [FATHER] TO HIS CURRENT EARNINGS AS A 

TECHNICIAN WHEN TECHNICIANS EARN LESS THEN WHAT 

INSTALLERS EARN AND [FATHER] VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO 

MOVE TO A TECHNICIAN POSITION FROM AN INSTALLER 

WITHOUT JUST CAUSE AND KNOWING THE TECHNICIAN 

POSITION WOULD NOT PAY PREVAILING WAGES[?]

WHETHER THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED BY 

NOT INCLUDING ALL PERQUISITES [FATHER] WAS/IS 

RECEIVING AS INCOME PURSUANT TO THOSE PERQUISITES 

WHICH ARE HELD TO BE INCOME BY LAW[?]

WHETHER THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ERRED BY 

NOT INCLUDING ALL THE RENTAL AND EXPENSE INCOME 

PROVIDED TO [FATHER] FROM HIS PARAMOUR AS INCOME 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT[?]

Mother’s Brief at 4.

Our standard of review of child support orders is as follows:

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 

____________________________________________

1 We note that the court’s August 21, 2014 order that granted Mother’s 

request for an extension of time extended her original time of twenty-one 

(21) days by an additional thirty (30) days, such that she had fifty-one (51) 

days from the August 18, 2014 order to file a timely Rule 1925(b) 

statement.
J-A10012-15

- 3 -

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. 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.

Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850, 854 (Pa.Super.2012) (quoting Brickus v. 

Dent, 5 A.3d 1281, 1284 (Pa.Super.2010)). Additionally,

[a]n award of support, once in effect, may be modified via

petition at any time, provided that the petitioning party 

demonstrates a material and substantial change in their 

circumstances warranting a modification. See 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 4352(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.19. The burden of 

demonstrating a “material and substantial change” rests 

with the moving party, and the determination of whether 

such change has occurred in the circumstances of the 

moving party rests within the trial court’s discretion. See 

Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830 ([Pa.]2002).

Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786, 789 (Pa.Super.2012) (quoting 

Plunkard v. McConnell, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa.Super.2008)).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph C. 

Adams, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 14, 2014, at 3-5, 7-12 

(finding: (1) Father’s income for support obligation properly based on actual 

earnings as a technician, his promotion offers increased opportunities for 
J-A10012-15

- 4 -

advancement and provides more job security; (2) employer-provided 

perquisites such as cell phone stipend, use of company vehicle and Marriott 

Rewards credit card were negligible and should not be included in income, 

the purchase of stock at market value through employer is not a stock 

option, dividends paid on stock and employer contribution to Father’s 401(k) 

were properly included as Father’s income; (3) both parties receive 

significant household contributions from other parties, $200 per month is 

appropriate addition to Father’s income to reflect contributions of paramour). 

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2015
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM
Circulated 04/22/2015 03:38 PM