Court Opinion

ID: 9756134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:09:32.477844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:12.757767
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Judge,
concurring:
I concur, and would add to the majority’s analysis as follows. The appellant argued that the award was excessive in that the Court failed to consider that his daughter was receiving financial assistance in the form of grants and loans which significantly reduced her real financial need.
In Miller v. Miller, 353 Pa.Super. 194, 197, 509 A.2d 402, 404 (1986) this Court stated:
It is well established that a parent who has sufficient assets and earning capability to furnish support without undue hardship for a child’s college education is charged with a duty to do so. Sutliff v. Sutliff, 339 Pa.Super. 523, 489 A.2d 764 (1985). It is concommitantly true that independent resources of a college age child may be considered in determining the child’s need for support. Id., citing Devergilius v. Devergilius, 329 Pa.Super. 434, 478 A.2d 866 (1984). See also Commonwealth ex rel Platt v. Platt, 227 Pa.Super. 423, 323 A.2d 29 (1974). That is not to say that a child must always contribute as much as possible to the payment of his or her educational expenses. Clearly, if a parent can meet the support needs of a college-age child with ease, a court is free to impose a complete obligation.
353 Pa.Superior Ct. at 197-98, 509 A.2d at 404. (Emphasis added).
Likewise, in Commonwealth ex rel. Hanerkam v. Hanerkam, 221 Pa.Super. 182, 289 A.2d 742 (1972), this Court stated:
*614The potential availability to students of loans, grants, or self-help by part-time or summer employment does not negate the duty of the parent but does merit cognizance thereof when a serious question of undue hardship is presented.
221 Pa.Superior Ct. at 186, 289 A.2d at 744. (Emphasis added).
However, in the instant case, the appellant has failed to establish any undue hardship caused by the support order. To the contrary, the appellant has ample assets and earning capacity to shoulder the minimal burden imposed.1
It should be emphasized that parents bear the primary financial responsibility for their children’s reasonable college expenses. College grants and student loans are secondary sources of financial aid, which are intended to assist those students whose parents cannot afford to bear the full cost of their children’s college expenses.
Moreover, governmental and private sources of financial aid are not unlimited. Real need of those dependant on financial aid already greatly exceeds the available resources. Consequently, this Court must not allow a parent, who can afford to meet his financial responsibilities, to shift his burden to secondary sources of financial aid.2 To do so would reward the appellant’s failure to meet his legal obligations and would, in the aggregate, deny truly needy students access to limited resources.

. It should be noted that it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish “undue hardship." Though I have no doubt as to the adequacy of his financial resources, I would add that his failure to provide adequate disclosure regarding the value of significant financial assets precludes a finding of undue hardship in any case.

. The Master indicated that the appellant’s failure to support his daughter resulted in the daughter having to accumulate three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00) in debt each year to pursue her education. If there is undue hardship in this case it is that imposed on the daughter by her father, the appellant.
The Master also indicated that she was only receiving college grants because of the destitute situation her father, the appellant, has placed her in. (Master's Report and Recommendation at 24).