Opinion ID: 2166944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Discussion of Child Support Provisions

Text: Child support may be provided for in the following ways: (1) Support entered by a Domestic Relations Order with no Property Settlement Agreement. (2) A Support amount set forth in a Property Settlement Agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree and not entered as a domestic relations order. (3) A support amount set forth in a Property Settlement Agreement that is incorporated and merged into a divorce decree. As soon as a property settlement agreement is incorporated into the decree, the agreement is superseded by the decree, and obligations imposed are not those imposed by contract but are those imposed by the decree since the contract is merged in the decree. The court approves the agreement so the terms merge and become part of a court order and, therefore, enforceable as any other court order. One who is in contempt of a duty of support established by court order may be imprisoned until he or she purges herself or himself of contempt by complying with the terms and conditions imposed by the court. If a court has the power to enforce an order of child support by exercising its contempt powers, it must also have the right to modify the support order. (4) A support provision from a property settlement agreement that becomes part of a domestic relations order where the Property Settlement Agreement is incorporated but not merged. The agreement is approved by the court so the terms become res judicata and not subject to collateral attack, but do not merge. The payor establishes his or her duty to support separately by (1) agreement; and (2) court order. The instant matter involves the fourth type of support arrangement because the parties' incorporated but unmerged property settlement agreement provides that Husband is to make his support payments through the Domestic Relations Office, which issued an Order adopting the terms of the agreement. Usually, the complications involved with respect to enforcement and modification of child support agreements entered into before the February 1988 amendments to the Divorce Code stem from the distinctions our courts have made regarding incorporation and merger. In Sonder v. Sonder, 378 Pa.Super. 474, 549 A.2d 155 (1988) the majority held that where a property settlement agreement is incorporated but not merged, the courts may not enforce or modify the agreement. In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Beck stated that an incorporated agreement should be treated as merged for purposes of enforcement. The case before us raises the issue of whether an incorporated but unmerged agreement is subject to modification when its child support provision is the basis for a domestic relations order.