hearing before the hearing
officer and the resulting order are contained in the reproduced record. "It is
well-established in this Commonwealth that it is 'the appellant's
responsibility to order the transcript required and ascertain its presence in
the record prior to certification for appeal.'" Commonwealth v. O'Black,
897 A.2d 1234, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2006). Nevertheless, because the
transcript and the hearing officer's recommendation are contained in the
reproduced record and have not been disputed, we may consider them. See
Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 1145 n.4 (Pa. 2012).
We recognize that the trial court relied upon the hearing officer's
recommendation to arrive at the amount of the support due.3 However, the ____________________________________________
3 The hearing officer's recommendation, dated October 7, 2016, provides the following in pertinent part:
CALCULATION INCLUDES THE COST TO [MOTHER] FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR [FATHER] AND THE CHILDREN, THE MORTGAGE EXPENSE ON THE MARITAL RESIDENCE, AND SHARED CUSTODY OF [YOUNGER CHILD]. THERE IS NO INDICATION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR A MORTGAGE DEVIATION AND INCOMES HAVE BEEN EQUALIZED. EFFECTIVE 7/5/16, [MOTHER] IS TO PAY $365.93 PER MONTH FOR THE SUPPORT OF TWO CHILDREN, ... PLUS $38 PER MONTH ORDERED ON AMOUNT ON ANY ARREARS WHICH MAY (Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A27006-17
hearing officer's recommendation does not specify which Rule was relied
upon and the trial court's opinion does not clarify this point either. The
specific reference from the trial court's opinion solely provides that "[t]here
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
HEREAFTER ACCRUE. OVERPAYMENT IS SET AT $499.34 AS OF 10/7/16. CASE IS REFERRED TO THE FINANCIAL GROUP TO MOVE THE OVERPAYMENT ON THE SPA DEBT LINE TO THE CSA LINES. SPOUSAL SUPPORT IS SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE 7/5/16. [MOTHER] IS TO CONTINUE PROVIDING MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR [FATHER] AND THE CHILDREN. UNREIMBU[R]SED MEDICAL EXPENSES WHICH EXCEED THE FIRST $250 PER CALENDAR YEAR PER [FATHER]/CHILD ARE TO BE PAID AS FOLLOWS: 55% BY [MOTHER] AND 45% BY [FATHER]. [FATHER] SHALL TAKE [OLDER CHILD] ON HIS FEDERAL TAXES AND [MOTHER] SHALL TAKE [YOUNGER CHILD] ON HER FEDERAL TAXES AS DEPENDENCY EXEMPTIONS.
Explanation (if needed):
MOTHER EARNS $85,981.92 ANNUALLY WITH WOODLAND HILLS. SHE PAYS $97.46 SEMI-MONTH[LY] FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR SELF/[HUSBAND]/2 CHILDREN. SHE PAYS MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF $268.69 SEMI- MONTHLY. FATHER IS EMPLOYED BY A FAMILY BUSINESS. PER FATHER, HIS HOURS WERE REDUCED AND HE NOW EARNS $1500 BI-WEEKLY. HE FURTHER CLAIMS HE WILL NOT RECEIVE A BONUS THIS YEAR. THE BONUS WAS $20,000 AND WAS REDUCED TO $10,000 WHEN THE PARTIES SEPARATED. I FIND THE BONUS ISSUE TO BE SUSPECT AND HAVE INCLUDED $10,000 IN MY CALCULATION. I ALSO FIND THE REDUCTION IN HOURS TO BE SUSPECT AND HAVE USED $2000 BI-WEEKLY (PER 2015 W-2 FATHER EARNED $60,000) FOR MY CALCULATION. I FACTORED IN THE MORTGAGE BUT USED $1559. PER MOTHER, THAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE WHEN SHE LEFT THE RESIDENCE. SYSTEM EQUALIZED THE INCOME. I RAN BOTH PARTIES['] H/2.
J-A27006-17
is no indication that Mother was given a deviation for shared custody. To
the contrary, it indicates that the hearing officer