Court Opinion

ID: 9365999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 17:07:53.285331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.643449
License: Public Domain

J-A01008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    CHRISTINE ANN WERLEY                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JOSEPH ANTONIO HERNANDEZ                   :   No. 1706 EDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered March 31, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Domestic Relations at
                            No(s): DR-10-02209,
                             PACSES: 884112096

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                          FILED JANUARY 25, 2023

       Christine Ann Werley (Mother) appeals from the March 31, 2022, order

by the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, denying her exceptions to the

trial court’s November 10, 2021, order, which directed Joseph Antonio

Hernandez (Father) to pay child support in the amount of $595.68 per month

for the one minor child (Child)1 the parties share. On appeal, Mother raises

several claims: (1) the court failed to assign Father an earning capacity

commensurate with his prior work experience; (2) the court failed to properly

calculate Father’s income for child support purposes; and (3) the court failed

____________________________________________

1 Child was approximately 11 years old at the time of the underlying
proceedings.
J-A01008-23

to properly calculate childcare expenses based on the record. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

       The parties were never married, and their relationship lasted only a

couple of months. See N.T., 10/14/21, at 61, 63. Child was born in October

of 2011.    Following their separation, Mother filed a support action against

Father. Both parties are self-employed: (1) Mother owns a massage business;

and (2) Father is stonemason. On July 8, 2011, the court ordered Father to

pay support in the amount of $1,706.00 per month. 2 Father did not appeal

that decision.    The support ordered remained relatively unchanged for the

following ten years.

       In February 2021, Mother filed a petition for contempt of the July 8th

order, alleging Father was “inconsistent with his support obligation, and ha[d]

notified Mother via email and/or text that he will pay support when she

allow[ed] him to see the minor child.” Mother’s Petition for Contempt of Order

Dated July 8, 2011, 2/5/21, at 1.

       Subsequently, on March 18, 2021, Father filed a petition for modification

of his support obligation due to his loss of income as a result of the Covid-19

pandemic. See Father’s Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order,

____________________________________________

2 The master determined that Father held an earning capacity of
approximately $51,000 as an experienced mason. N.T., 9/13/21, at 49.

                                           -2-
J-A01008-23

3/18/21, at 2.      An interim order was entered on May 28, 2021, requiring

Father to pay $1,445.95 per month. See Order of Court – Allocated, 5/28/21.3

       Nevertheless, the parties were not able to reach an agreement with

regard to Father’s support obligation, and the matter was listed for a hearing

before Hearing Officer Richard F. Betz. See Summary Report, 11/10/21 at 1.

The parties appeared for three hearings that were conducted on August 5,

____________________________________________

3 The interim order followed a support conference that was conducted the
same day. The hearing officer, Errol Bott, issued a summary, in which he
noted the following:

       [Mother] is self-employed with her own business. A Schedule C
       from 2019 was provided which shows a profit of $23,669.00.
       [Mother] also receive[d] earned income credit of $3,055.00 and
       child tax credit of $1,691.00. These shall be considered income
       for [her].    [Mother] stated she did not receive wages or
       compensation from her employment.               [She] provided
       documentation stating that due to medical issues, child needs
       supervision. Medical personnel stated a need for child care, the
       child care costs shall be considered.

       [Father] is currently not employed. [Father] showed 2 statements
       of pay totaling $1,500.00, which he states represents the total
       income he has earned for 2021. [Father] provided limited income
       for 2020 as well doing masonry work. [He] provided very little
       information with respect to work sought and has not looked for
       any work outside of his field. It does not appear [Father] has
       attempted to mitigate any losses he may have had. [Father] shall
       be assessed an earning capacity. [He] was last assessed an
       earning capacity in 2011 by the Hearing Officer of $51,250. Per
       the Occupational Wage Guide for Masonry (47-2051) this
       assessment falls within the salary guides. As there has been no
       attempt to mitigate losses, Officer will not deviate from this
       assessment; as even though the assessment is over 10 years old,
       it still falls within the wage guide range.

Summary of Trier of Fact, 5/28/21, at 2-3.

                                           -3-
J-A01008-23

2021, September 13, 2021, and October 14, 2021. See id. The findings of

the Domestic Relations Conference Officer were admitted into evidence at the

time of the proceedings. See id. at 1-2.4 Mother made no objections, but

Father disagreed with the calculation of his income. See id. at 2.

        On November 10, 2021, the hearing officer entered a report,

summarizing its findings. First, the officer pointed out the parties “are both

self-employed individuals.”       Summary Report, 11/10/21, at 2.    The officer

explained the evidence presented at the hearings and his findings as follows:

               The Superior Court in the case of Fennell v Fennell, 753
        A.2d 866 (Pa. Super. 2004) stated in relevant part, “[O]ur
        jurisprudence is clear, therefore, that the owner of a closely held
        corporation cannot avoid a support obligation by sheltering
        income that would be available for support by manipulating salary,
        perquisites, corporate expenditures, and/or corporate distribution
        amounts.” Id. at 868. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made it
        clear that income available for support is based upon cash flow in
        lieu of tax code adjustments in cases where a party is self-
        employed. Labar v Labar, 731 A.2d 1252 (Pa. [ ] 1999). The
        only way to accurately determine cash flow is to give the opposing
        party and the court an opportunity to review all expenditures used
        to off-set gross income. In that vein, an order was entered
        requiring [Father] to provide a copy of his most recently filed tax
        return along with all corresponding receipts utilized to off-set
        gross receipts. On the original hearing date, it became apparent
        that [Father] failed to comply with that order. As a result, the
        matter was rescheduled so that [Father] could comply.

              As it was not known that [Father] was going to challenge
        the calculation of [Mother]’s net monthly income until the second
        day of testimony, a corresponding self-employment order for
        [Mother] was not issued. Notwithstanding that fact, [Mother]’s

____________________________________________

4   See also N.T., 8/5/21/ at 3.

                                           -4-
J-A01008-23

        counsel assured the court that she would comply with the same
        requirements contained in [Father]’s order.

              [Mother] submitted a copy of her federal tax return, and
        corresponding documentation, for calendar years 2019 and 2020.
        The undersigned Hearing Officer used the 2020 federal tax return
        in order to calculate [Mother]’s income level.

               For 2020, the undersigned Hearing Officer has been
        prorating the profit reported by self-employed individuals if their
        business was not open for the entire calendar year due to Covid.
        [Mother] credibly testified that her business was open throughout
        the entire calendar year. [Mother] did realize a reduction in
        business as a result of Covid nonetheless. On the 2020 federal
        tax return, [Mother] reported gross receipts of $58,512.00.
        [Mother] was able to confirm expenses for advertising in the
        amount of $3,083.17. [She] was unable to provide substantiating
        evidence to justify her deduction for a car and truck expense on
        Line 9 of the profit and loss schedule. As a result, this deduction
        will not be taken into consideration.

             [Mother] provided sufficient documentation to confirm
        expenses related to a Section 179 deduction in the amount of
        $5,097.18. This will be taken into consideration.

               [Mother] failed to provide any documentation to confirm the
        deduction which appears on Line 15, for insurance. As a result, it
        will not be included. On Line 18, office expenses, [she] was able
        to confirm expenses totaling $754.83.        For Line 20b, rent,
        [Mother] was able to confirm expenses totaling $17,391.00. For
        Line 22, supplies, [she] was able to confirm expenses totaling
        $1,756.63. [She] took a deduction on Line 24b for meals.
        [Mother] failed to present any testimony to show that the expense
        was associated with the furtherance of her business. As a result,
        it was not included.

               On Line 25, utilities, [Mother] was able to verify expenses
        from RCN[5] in the amount of $2,091.69. [She] also provided
        verification of a cell phone expense. [She] confirmed that she
        uses the phone for business and for personal use.              The
____________________________________________

5   RCN is a internet and phone provider. N.T., 10/14/21, at 29.

                                           -5-
J-A01008-23

     undersigned Hearing Officer will include $100.00 per month, for a
     total of $1,200.00 as the expense for the cell phone.

           Under “other” [Mother] was able to verily a subcontractor’s
     expense of $12,231.80. [She] was able to confirm an expense for
     electronics purchased during that calendar year in the amount of
     $559.94. [Mother] also took a deduction for uniforms/clothing.
     The undersigned Hearing Officer included the expense for the
     cleaning service of sheets but did not include the expense for
     clothing since the clothing purchased appears to have been
     normal clothing that could have been worn at any time either
     working, or at home. The expense permitted totaled $449.91.
     [Mother] took a deduction for what was identified as a website
     expense in the amount of $750.00. This will be included.

           After deducting all of the expenses, in the amounts set forth
     above, from the gross receipts reported on [Mother]’s federal tax
     return, it leaves a remainder of $13,145.85. This is considered
     [her] income for calendar year 2020. [Mother] also received an
     earned income credit of $3,069.00 and a child tax credit of
     $978.00.

           [Mother] also provided evidence that the minor child of this
     support matter requires psychological treatment.                The
     undersigned Hearing Officer believes that it is appropriate to
     include the cost of psychological, or psychiatric treatment, as part
     of [Father]’s support obligation. [Father]’s contribution will be
     made in conformity with the division of unreimbursed medical
     expenses, to the extent that they are not covered by insurance.

           [Mother] provided sufficient evidence to confirm that the
     child attended camp in calendar year 2021 at a cost of $255.00.
     This was a one-time expense. [Father]’s proportional share of this
     expense will be added to [Father]’s arrears balance.

           [Mother] testified that she incurs a childcare expense. [Her]
     evidence with regard to this expense was lacking. [Mother] was
     vague with regard to the manner in which the childcare expense
     was determined. [She] testified that she would pay the childcare
     provider at the conclusion of each week of childcare service. [She]
     would write the childcare provider a check each week. [Mother]’s
     evidence was missing several weeks of checks. [She] attempted
     to explain this by indicating that the childcare provider did not
     have an opportunity to get to the bank to deposit the checks. A

                                    -6-
J-A01008-23

     close review of the evidence submitted by [Mother] clearly shows
     that the childcare provider, especially in recent weeks, has been
     depositing the checks utilizing her mobile phone. Using this
     method, the childcare provider would not have to leave her home.
     Therefore, [Mother]’s explanation fails.

            From March 5, 2021 through the final hearing date on
     October 14, 2021, [Mother] was able to provide confirmation of
     childcare expenses totaling $4,300.00. This accumulated over a
     thirty-two (32) week period. This equates to an average weekly
     childcare expense of $134.38. [Father] will be required to
     contribute his proportional share of this expense.

            [Father] in this matter is also self-employed. Although [he]
     completed a 2020 federal tax return[, Father] also confirmed that
     he was closed for a period of time in calendar year 2020. As
     indicated above, the undersigned Hearing Officer prorates profits
     for the calendar year to cover only the periods of time that the
     business was open. Unfortunately [Father] was unable to provide
     the undersigned Hearing Officer with clear information with regard
     to the period of time that he was closed. [Father] was extremely
     vague and unconvincing in his responses. Since [he] was unable
     to provide this information, the undersigned Hearing Officer
     utilized the 2019 federal tax return for [Father]. [He] reported
     gross receipts of $27,859.00. As indicated above, [Father] was
     ordered to provide receipts, or other documentation to confirm
     expenses associated with the deductions taken on the federal tax
     return. As part of that order, [Father] was to group the receipts
     to correspond with the deductions which appear on the tax return.
     In addition, each group of receipts was to include a summary page
     identifying each receipt, the date of the transaction, purpose of
     the transaction, and the amount of the transaction. [Father] failed
     to comply with this part of the order. Furthermore, [he] claimed
     ignorance with regard to the manner in which his tax return was
     completed.       [Father] claim[ed] that he merely provided
     documentation to his accountant, and his accountant completed
     the federal tax return. As a result, [Father] was unable to
     determine what receipts went with which deduction.

           It is also important to note that [Father] admitted that he
     received cash for the payment of some of the services that he
     provide[d]. Despite that fact, [he] was unable to identify the
     amount of cash that he received in calendar year 2019. [Father]
     also confirmed that he does not keep records of the amounts of

                                    -7-
J-A01008-23

     cash that he receives. It is also important to note that [his]
     Exhibits contained many duplicate receipts. Since there was no
     summary page for the receipt exhibits, the undersigned Hearing
     Officer went through each receipt individually.        Included in
     [Father]’s Exhibit “3” were various receipts totaling $14,379.94.

           Among those receipts was a single receipt in the amount of
     $10,271.40. [Father] acknowledged that this receipt is not for his
     business. [He] explained that he allows other contractors, or
     masons, to use his account when purchasing materials so that
     they can receive any discounts or price adjustments to which he
     is entitled. The fact that [Father] attempted to include this
     document as his own deduction is quite troubling and greatly
     undermines [his] credibility. The undersigned Hearing Officer will
     deduct that sum from the total of $14,379.94. This leaves a
     remainder of $4,108.54. This is the amount that will be taken into
     consideration to offset gross receipts.

           [Father] supplied [Father]’s Exhibit “4”.         This exhibit
     included a single cell phone bill in the amount of $124.90.
     [Father] confirmed that he utilizes the cell phone for both business
     and personal use. As a result, half of the total will be included as
     a business expense. The undersigned Hearing Officer will include
     the sum of $62.45 to offset gross receipts for this expense. In
     [Father]’s Exhibit “5”, [he] was able to confirm the expense for
     sub-contractors totaling $5,223.00.       This will be taken into
     consideration as an offset to gross receipts.

           Based upon the information above, [Father] was able to
     confirm business expenses totaling $9,393.99 over the 2019
     calendar year. After deducting this from the gross receipts figure
     appearing on his federal tax return, it leaves a remainder of
     $18,465.01. This figure represents [Father]’s gross income for
     calendar year 2019.

           Entering the findings of facts set forth above into the
     PACSES system, the PACSES system calculated [Mother]’s net
     monthly income to be $1,233.37 and calculated [Father]’s net
     monthly income to be $1,308.20. The PACSES system calculated
     [Father]’s basic support obligation to be $287.00.         [His]
     contribution toward the childcare expense equates to $254.68 per
     month. This increases [his] monthly support obligation from
     $287.00 per month to $541.68 per month.

                                    -8-
J-A01008-23

             [Father]’s net monthly income represents fifty-one (51%)
       percent of the parties’ collective net monthly income figure. As a
       result, [Father] will be responsible to contribute fifty-one (51%)
       percent of the summer camp expense for 2021. That summer
       camp expense was confirmed to be $255.00.                 [Father]’s
       proportional share equates to $130.05. This amount will be added
       to [Father]’s arrears balance.

Id. at 2-8.

       That same day, the court entered an order, which adopted the hearing

officer’s findings and directed Father to pay a total of $595.68 per month,

which was allocated as follows: (1) $541.68 for current support; and (2)

$54.00 for arrears.6 See Order of Court, 11/10/21, at 1-2.

       Mother filed exceptions to the court’s November 10th order, arguing

that: (1) the hearing officer erred and abused his discretion in calculating

Father’s income for the purpose of calculating the child support obligation; (2)

the officer erred and abused his discretion in failing to assign Father an earning

capacity that was proportionate to his employment history; and (3) the officer

erred and abused his discretion in calculating Mother’s childcare expenses.

See Mother’s Exceptions to the Order dated, November 10, 2021, 11/23/21,

at 1 (unpaginated).

____________________________________________

6 The obligation included cash medical support in the amount of $250.00
annually for unreimbursed medical expenses. See Order of Court, 11/10/21,
at 2.

                                           -9-
J-A01008-23

       The court held a hearing regarding Mother’s exceptions on January 12,

2022. Thereafter, on March 31, 2022, the court entered an order, denying

Mother’s exceptions. The court stated:

             As persuasive as [Mother]’s argument is, after review of the
       record, it does not appear to the Court that the Hearing Officer
       committed an error of law or abuse of discretion in calculating
       [Father]’s income or in failing to assign [Father] an earning
       capacity that is commensurate with his employment history.
       Under Pa.R.C.P. 1910-16-2(d)(4), if the trier of fact determines
       that a party to a support action has willfully failed to obtain or
       maintain appropriate employment, the trier of fact may impute to
       that party an income equal to the party’s earning capacity. This
       is not a mandatory provision, and it is within the trier of fact’s
       discretion to determine whether a party has willfully failed to
       obtain or maintain appropriate employment which would support
       imputing an earning capacity. Further, the Hearing Officer did not
       commit an error of law or abuse of discretion in calculating
       [Mother]’s childcare expenses. The Hearing Officer found that
       [Mother]’s evidence with regard to childcare expense “was
       lacking” and that “[Mother] was vague with regard to the manner
       in which the childcare expense was determined.” As such, after
       review of the record, the Hearing Officer did not abuse his
       discretion or commit an error of law in his calculation of the
       childcare expenses.

Order, 3/31/22, at 1 n.1 (unpaginated) (record citation omitted). This appeal

followed.7

____________________________________________

7 The trial court points out that it entered the order denying Mother’s
exceptions on March 31st, but the order was not served on counsel for the
parties until June 15, 2022. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/26/22, at 1. Such action
constituted an apparent breakdown of the court’s processes. Moreover, a
Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice was never entered evincing that notice of entry of the
March 31, 2022, order was given. Therefore, we will consider Mother’s June
24, 2022, notice of appeal as timely filed. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (providing
notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of order from
which the appeal is taken”); Pa.R.A.P. 108(b) (date of entry of an order shall
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-A01008-23

       Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

       A. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion
       in failing to assign [Father] an earning capacity co[m]mensurate
       with his experience?

       B. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion
       in failing to properly calculate [Father]’s income for child support
       purposes?

       C. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion
       in failing to properly calculate child care expenses, based upon the
       evidence of record?

Mother’s Brief at 4.

       Based on the nature of Mother’s claims, we will address her first two

arguments together. Mother first alleges the trial court erred and abused its

discretion by failing to assign Father an earning capacity that corresponded to

his work experience. See Mother’s Brief at 27. She states that he failed to

produce certain documents, claimed ignorance regarding the manner in which

his tax return was prepared, admitted to receiving cash for services but could

not specify an exact amount, and threatened to stop paying child support

unless Mother allowed him to see Child. See id. at 30-31. She notes Father

did not provide any evidence or testimony about his inability to work, but

testified that he was experienced as a stonemason and also worked as a

painter. Id. at 31. Mother claims Father “failed to demonstrate a material

____________________________________________

be the day on which the clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of
entry of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(b)).

                                          - 11 -
J-A01008-23

and substantial change in circumstances required by Pa.R.C.P. 1910-19(c) and

this Court’s decision in” Samii v. Samii, 847 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 2004).8

Mother’s Brief at 33-34. Moreover, she contends he failed to present evidence

as to how the Covid-19 pandemic affected his income or his inability to work.

See Mother’s Brief at 34. Mother maintains that because (a) the same Hearing

Officer assessed Father’s earning capacity in 2011, (b) he never appealed the

decision, (c) he has been employed in the same trade since 2009, and (d) he

has no health conditions that prevent him from working, he did not meet his

burden in establishing a material change to his circumstances. Id. at 34, 37.

       In Mother’s second claim, she alleges that the court erred and abused

its discretion in failing to properly calculate Father’s income for child support

purposes. Mother’s Brief at 38. Mother suggests that Father filed his petition

for modification after she filed her petition for contempt. Id. She reiterates

her prior argument that Father could not provide testimony or documentation

regarding the exact dates his business was operating in 2020, how the

pandemic affected his income, and his inability to work during that time. Id.

at 39. Mother contends that because Father failed to comply with the court

____________________________________________

8 We note that Samii is distinguishable from the present matter as it concerns
a parent that voluntarily chose to stay home with the minor child. See Samii,
847 A.2d at 696. The case turned on whether to assess the parent an earning
capacity when she placed herself in the “stay at home” situation. Id. at 697.
Here, Father does not allege he is a stay-at-home parent and therefore, the
request for modification is not based on his lack of employment.

                                          - 12 -
J-A01008-23

orders and was extremely vague in his testimony was it was inexplicable that

the hearing officer determined his gross income was only $18,456.01. Id.

She submits the trial court “should have assessed Father with an earning

capacity at least equivalent to an annual salary of $51,250.00, representing

the prior assessment of the [c]ourt in 2011.” Id. at 40.

      Our standard of review of child support orders is well settled:

         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 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.

      We further note that

         [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.

Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786, 788-89 (Pa. Super. 2012) (some

citations omitted). “The principal goal in child support matters is to serve the

best interests of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses.”

J.P.D. v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted)

                                     - 13 -
J-A01008-23

       In reviewing the calculation of a party’s support obligations, this Court

has held that:

       a person’s support obligation is determined primarily by the
       parties’ actual financial resources and their earning capacity.
       Although a person’s actual earnings usually reflect his earning
       capacity, where there is a divergence, the obligation is determined
       more by earning capacity than actual earnings.

Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations

omitted). “[A] reviewing court does not weigh [earning capacity] evidence or

determine credibility as these are functions of the trial court.” Doherty v.

Doherty, 859 A.2d 811, 812 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

       Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a), monthly gross income “is ordinarily

based on at least a six-month average of a party’s income.” See Pa.R.C.P.

1910.16-2(a).9 In assessing whether a party’s income should be reduced,

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2 provides:

       (d) Reduced or Fluctuating Income.

       (1) Voluntary Reduction of Income. When either party voluntarily
       assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment,
       changes occupations or changes employment status to pursue an
       education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect
       on the support obligation.

       (2) Involuntary Reduction of, and Fluctuations in, Income. No
       adjustments in support payments will be made for normal
       fluctuations in earnings. However, appropriate adjustments will
       be made for substantial continuing involuntary decreases in
       income, including but not limited to the result of illness, lay-off,
____________________________________________

9 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302 defines “income” for support purposes, and includes
income from any source.

                                          - 14 -
J-A01008-23

       termination, job elimination or some other employment
       situation over which the party has no control unless the trier
       of fact finds that such a reduction in income was willfully
       undertaken in an attempt to avoid or reduce the support
       obligation.

                                       *       *    *

       (4) Earning Capacity. If the trier of fact determines that a party
       to a support action has willfully failed to obtain or maintain
       appropriate employment, the trier of fact may impute to that
       party an income equal to the party’s earning capacity. Age,
       education, training, health, work experience, earnings history and
       child care responsibilities are factors which shall be considered in
       determining earning capacity.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1), (2), (4) (emphases added).             “[T]here is a

rebuttable presumption that the guideline-calculated support amount is the

correct support amount.”          Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1(d); see also Ileiwat v.

Labadi, 233 A.3d 853, 860 (Pa. Super. 2020).10

       Contrary to Mother’s argument, the trial court is correct that Rule

1910.16-2(d)(4) does not mandate that if a trier of fact finds a party willfully

failed to obtain or maintain appropriate employment, the trier-of-fact must

impute to the party an income equal to the party’s earning capacity. See

Order, 3/31/22, at 1 n.1 (unpaginated). The Rule clearly states that the trier

of fact may impute an income equal to the party’s earning capacity. As such,

it was up to the hearing officer’s discretion to determine Father’s gross

____________________________________________

10 This memorandum references the 2021 version of the support guidelines
that were in place before the most recent amendments took effect on January
1, 2022.

                                           - 15 -
J-A01008-23

income. It is evident that while the hearing officer, and imputably the trial

court, found Father less than credible concerning his income, and his actions

did not amount to a willful failure to obtain or maintain appropriate

employment. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4). Father did present testimony

and evidence that his employment was adversely affected by the Covid-19

pandemic (i.e., he could not work for two months), he did attempt various

avenues to pursue employment, including becoming a painter at one point.

N.T., 9/13/21, at 3-4, 35. Moreover, it also merits mention that the hearing

officer extensively examined Father’s 2019 and 2020 federal tax returns to

ascertain his income and did not credit him with all his expenses.        See

Summary Report at 5-7. Nevertheless, the 2019 tax return did indicate a

significate decrease in income ($18,456.01)11 from the original 2011

assessment ($51,250).

        To the extent that Mother asks us to reweigh certain factors — Father’s

long employment history as a mason and that he did not appeal the original

2011 support order — in her favor, we decline to do so. See Doherty, 859

A.2d at 812. Father demonstrated that he suffered a loss of income as a result

of the Covid-19 pandemic, which he had no control over and which was a

material and substantial change warranting a modification.      See Pa.R.C.P.

1910.16-2(d).       Accordingly, the court’s findings and conclusions were

____________________________________________

11   See Summary Report at 7.

                                          - 16 -
J-A01008-23

supported by the record, and we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion

as to Mother’s first two claims.

      In Mother’s third argument, she asserts the court erred and abused its

discretion by failing to properly calculate the childcare expenses.      See

Mother’s Brief at 41. Mother stated that because Child was diagnosed with

several developmental disorders and needed to be continuously supervised,

she had to employ a private babysitter. Id. at 41-42. Mother purportedly

paid the babysitter $250 per week for 42 weeks, and $300 per week for ten

weeks in the summer.      Id. at 42.    At the October 14, 2021, hearing, she

introduced a number of checks into evidence that represented payments

through August 27, 2021, but she had no record of the checks she made for

the month of September. Id. at 43. She claims the hearing officer improperly

calculated her childcare expenses on an 18-week period, not a 52-week

period. Id. at 44. She concludes that the hearing officer’s determination is

contrary to the evidence and testimony she produced at the time of the

hearing. Id.

      Keep our standard of review in mind, we note the record belies Mother’s

assertions that she paid the babysitter for every week of the year.       For

example, Father’s counsel asked Mother, “[S]o regardless of how many hours

of daycare you get, you pay [the babysitter] $250 a week. Is that right?”

N.T., 10/14/21, at 66. Mother replied in the affirmative. Id. Father’s counsel

then asked “if it’s one hour you pay her $250[,]” to which Mother answered,

                                       - 17 -
J-A01008-23

“No. . . . It doesn’t go like that.” Id. Father’s counsel also pointed out there

were checks missing from December 18, 2020 to January 22, 2021, in

Mother’s proffer of payment. Id. at 68. There were also no checks for the

month of February 2021. See id. at 70. Mother testified, “I provided all of

the checks. If they’re not here, I don’t know where they are. But I provided

all of the checks for an entire year.” Id.

       Just like Father, the hearing officer found Mother’s evidence of childcare

expenses to be “lacking” and “vague.” See Summary Report at 5. We are

bound by its credibility determinations. See Doherty, supra. We discern no

error on the hearing officer’s calculation as it was based on Mother providing

“confirmation of childcare expenses totaling $4,300.00” for the period of

March 5, 2021, to October 14, 2021 — a 32-week period. Summary Report

at 5. Without more evidence from Mother regarding payments, we conclude

she has failed to establish an error of law or abuse of discretion in the trial

court’s decision to reject her request to recalculate these expenses. As such,

Mother’s final claim has no merit.12

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

12We note that as the parties transition to a post-pandemic environment
where their earning capacities may change again, there is no rule barring a
party from filing another petition for modification, as long as it is warranted.

                                          - 18 -
J-A01008-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/25/2023

                          - 19 -