Court Opinion

ID: 9958234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 16:09:06.134521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.957375
License: Public Domain

J-A03024-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 RACHEL ANNE GURNEE                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant             :
                                          :
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 KHALEEL HASAN ABDEL WAHAB                :   No. 714 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 19, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at
                     No(s): NS202300166 / CIV 45-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                           FILED: April 8, 2024

      Rachel Anne Gurnee (Mother), pro se, appeals from the order

establishing the child support obligation of Khaleel Hasan Abdel Wahab

(Father) regarding their 22-month-old daughter (the Child).             Mother

challenges several aspects of the trial court’s procedure and its calculation of

the support award. After careful review, we affirm.

      The record discloses the following background. The Child was born in

July 2021.    Mother and Father married in August 2021 and separated in

September 2021.     According to Mother, she originally filed for support in

Venango County in December 2022, but the case was transferred to Erie

County pursuant to the Intrastate Family Support Act (IFSA) in February 2023.

See 23 PA.C.S.A. §§ 8101-8415; see also Mother’s Brief at 4. The parties

originally appeared before a conference officer, and Mother subsequently

demanded a de novo hearing before the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court
J-A03024-24

issued a support order adopting the conference officer’s recommendation,

which obligated Father to pay Mother $793.90 per month, retroactive to

February 2023 – the date of the transfer to Erie County, not the purported

date of Mother’s initial filing.

      To calculate Mother’s monthly net income, the trial court considered

Mother’s actual, part-time earnings (16 hours per week), and assessed an

earning capacity for an additional 24 hours per week. The court utilized a

local tax rate of 1.00%. It also considered the fact that Mother would receive

a child tax credit. Mother timely filed this appeal and raises the following five

issues:

                1. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11, can a trial court merely
                   ratify a child support order that was based on the
                   summary of an office conference, which is
                   contested and not of-record, without referencing
                   any deficiency in the contrary argument presented
                   at the hearing de novo?

                2. Did the trial court ignore the rule which specifies
                   that the child support commences on the date of
                   the claim, when the judge’s order defers back to
                   the trier-of-fact’s summary, which specifies the
                   contested commencement date is the date the
                   support claim was transferred into Erie County?

                3. Was the trial court’s digression within the bounds
                   when the argument concerning Mother’s less-than-
                   fulltime employment being not willful was not
                   attended to at the hearing and then later denied in
                   the court’s opinion by virtue that the number of job
                   search activities could not be recalled at the
                   hearing?

                4. Was the intent of the statute, which directs that
                   child tax credit be managed to maximize the
                   available funds for the child, satisfied when the

                                      -2-
J-A03024-24

                   trier-of-fact added an unachievable amount to
                   Mother’s income?

                5. Is it obvious that the trier-of-fact did not make a
                   forthright attempt to perform in accordance with
                   the Guidelines when, among other things, the local
                   income tax for the City of Erie (1.65%) was ignored
                   and the administration’s online calculator default of
                   the most common 1.00% was used?

See Mother’s Brief at 2-3 (style adjusted).

      We begin with our well-settled standard of review in matters concerning

child support orders:

          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.

          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.

Sichelstiel v. Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d 350, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting

Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc)) (further

citations omitted).

      In her first issue, Mother argues that the trial court’s procedure was

faulty.   Specifically, she claims that she demanded a hearing de novo,

pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, but that the trial court merely ratified the

                                      -3-
J-A03024-24

conclusions from the support conference instead of reviewing the matter

anew.

      The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure establish two separate

procedures for expediting support matters. Rule 1910.10 indicates that the

action in support will proceed under the provisions of Rule 1910.11 unless the

court, by local rule, adopts the alternative hearing procedures set for in Rule

1910.12. Erie County did not adopt these alternative procedures; its support

cases are governed by Rule 1910.11.        Under this Rule, a support matter

proceeds by conference with a conference officer who then makes a

recommendation of a support order. Either party may then demand a hearing

before the court which shall be de novo. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11(i).

      We have held that a “de novo hearing is a full consideration of the case

anew.”   See Warner v. Pollock 644 A.2d 747, 750 (Pa. Super. 1994)

(citation omitted). “The reviewing body is in effect substituted for the prior

decision maker and redecides the case.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v.

Gussey, 466 A.2d 219, 222 (Pa. Super. 1983)). “A de novo trial court review

occurs when the court determines the merits of the legal question and issues

its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.” See Raymond v. Raymond,

279 A.3d 620, 626 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing City of Clairton v. Zoning

Hearing Board of City of Clairton, 246 A.3d 890, 906 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct.

2021).

      In its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court

explained its procedure:

                                     -4-
J-A03024-24

         Mother alleges that the court did not provide her with a
         hearing de novo. Ultimately, the court came to the same
         conclusion as the conference officer with regard to the
         amount for child support. This was, however, only after
         both parties were given a full and fair opportunity to present
         anew all evidence and testimony in support of their
         individual positions. Mother presented her testimony and
         admitted exhibits. The court ensured that Mother had a full
         opportunity to present her case by asking her after the
         presentation if she had anything else to present, to which
         Mother responded, “That will be all.”

         Similarly, at the apparent end of counsel’s presentation of
         Father’s case, the undersigned asked counsel if he had
         anything else for the court, at which point, Father responded
         with additional testimony.

         Thereafter, the [court] advised the parties, “I will review all
         of the documentation that has been provided to me, as well
         as the testimony, and I will issue an order in the near future
         that both parties will receive.” As the record reflects, the
         court received all evidence presented by parties and
         independently considered the same. The parties were given
         a full de novo hearing.

See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/23, (T.C.O.) at 4 (citations to the record

omitted).

      After review, we conclude that the court’s procedure was proper, that it

afforded Mother a de novo review. Mother had an opportunity to present her

case anew, and notwithstanding the court’s reference to the alternative

“exceptions” procedure, the court rendered its own findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Mother’s first appellate issue merits no relief.

      In her second appellate issue, Mother argues the trial court erred when

it determined that the child support award was retroactive to February 2023,

instead of December 2022. Rule 1910.17(a) provides, in relevant part: “An

                                      -5-
J-A03024-24

order of support shall be effective from the date of the filing of the complaint

or petition for modification unless the order specifies otherwise.” In her Brief,

Mother maintains that she filed for support online, presumably through

Department of Human Services’ “PA Child Support Program,” on December

26, 2022. According to her, the system gave Mother a request identification

number, processed the claim, and transmitted it to Venango County.          See

Mother’s Brief at 4. She says she was told by Venango County that the claim

must be moved to Erie County, because the Father was not responding to

mail. Id. “On February 22, 2023, Mother signed the form, IFSA, and the

claim was forwarded to Erie County.” Id. The transmittal was timestamped

in Erie County on February 23, 2023.

      When calculating Mother’s support, the conference officer recommended

the award be retroactive to February, not December. At the de novo hearing,

Mother raised the retroactivity issue, but she did not provide much evidence

or testimony supporting her position.     The narrative set forth in her Brief

(discussed above) is absent from the notes of testimony.        To be sure, the

record includes the IFSA transmittal form, which indicates that the case was

transmitted from Venango County to Erie County. But the transmittal form

does not state when the action was initiated. The record includes Mother’s

Uniform Support Petition, which includes an averment that the date of

retroactivity should be December 26, 2022. In addition to this form, Mother

provided a complaint for support which she said she filed in Venango.

However, neither of these documents includes timestamps, docket numbers,

                                      -6-
J-A03024-24

or any other information that would substantiate its timing. The trial court

ultimately determined that Mother did not present sufficient evidence

indicating that she actually filed for support in December 2022:

         This support action was instituted via a Uniform Support
         Petition signed by Mother on February 22, 2023 and time-
         stamped by the Erie County Section on February 23, 2023.
         Specifically, the Domestic Relations Section in Franklin
         [Township, Venango County, Pennsylvania] forwarded the
         Uniform Support Petition to Erie County via a Pennsylvania
         Child Support Enforcement Transmittal – IFSA. No record
         of any previous filing was included with the Transmittal.

         At the May 17, 2023 de novo hearing, Mother presented a
         Complaint for Child Support from the Court of Common
         Pleas of Venango County, which she indicates she filed on
         December 26, 2022. See Exhibit C. Nevertheless, the
         Complaint for Child Support presented has no timestamp,
         no docket number and no PACSES number and nothing
         appearing on the docket in Erie County documented the
         same. Assuming that the Complaint for Child Support
         presented by Mother at the de novo hearing was filed in
         Venango County, this court did not have any record
         evidence of what occurred subsequent to the filing resulting
         in this being initiated in Erie County via the Uniform Support
         Petition transmitted to Erie County. In sum, the record
         reflects only that the original filing date of the complaint is
         February 22, 2023, as commenced in the initiating tribunal
         of Venango County and forwarded to Erie County pursuant
         to the Intrastate Family Support Act.           Absent record
         information that Mother requested child support prior to that
         date via a complaint that was not withdrawn or dismissed,
         there is not support in the law to make the order for support
         retroactive to a date preceding the filing of the Uniform
         Support Petition.

T.C.O. at 7-8.

      Because sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law, the standard of

review is de novo, and the scope of review is plenary.               See, e.g.,

                                      -7-
J-A03024-24

Commonwealth v. Coniker, 290 A.3d 725, 734 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations

omitted).     Without official markings, the trial court found Mother’s

documentation to be insufficient. Importantly, Mother did not testify as to the

steps she undertook in December 2022, and thus the trial court had no record

evidence of the date of filing. Indeed, our understanding of what transpired

is gleaned from Mother’s appellate brief, which is not record evidence.

      For Mother’s benefit, we clarify that the question is not whether she was

being truthful, but only whether she provided sufficient evidence to the trial

court to establish the date of retroactivity. Although we are willing to construe

liberally materials filed by pro se litigants, they enjoy no special benefit.

Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “Any

layperson choosing to represent [themself] in a legal proceeding must, to

some reasonable extent, assume the risk that [the] lack of expertise and legal

training will prove [to be their] undoing.” Smithson v. Columbia Gas of

PA/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted).

Here, the trial court determined that the evidence Mother produced at the

hearing was not persuasive. We agree. Therefore, Mother’s second appellate

issue merits no relief.

      The rest of Mother’s appeal pertains to the calculation of her monthly

net income. In her third appellate issue, Mother challenges the trial court’s

decision to impute upon her a fulltime earning capacity. In Pennsylvania, child

support awards are calculated in accordance with specific statutory guidelines,

using a complex system that considers the net income of both parties, and

                                      -8-
J-A03024-24

accounts for the obligor’s capacity to pay and the reasonable needs of the

particular children. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204, 1216 (Pa.

2013). The guidelines provide extremely detailed instructions for calculating

child support awards based on both parties’ net income from all sources. Id.

at 1217; see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4322(a). As a general rule, the amount of

support to be awarded is based upon the parties' monthly net income over at

least a six-month average. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2. The Domestic Relations

Code defines the term “income” and includes income from any source.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302.

       However, when a party fails to obtain or maintain appropriate

employment, the trier-of-fact may impute to the party an income equal to that

party’s earning capacity, in accordance with the procedure set forth in

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4).    The court shall determine a reasonable work

regimen based upon the party’s relevant circumstances, including the jobs

available within a particular occupation, working hours and conditions, and

whether a party has exerted substantial good faith efforts to find employment.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)(i)(A)(ii).       “When the trier-of-fact imputes an

earning capacity to a party who would incur childcare expenses if the party

were   employed,   the   trier-of-fact    shall   consider   reasonable   childcare

responsibilities and expenses.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)(D). To determine

the earning capacity, the court shall consider the enumerated factors listed in

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(ii)(A)-(N).       These factors include, among others:

childcare responsibilities and expenses; residence; employment and earnings

                                         -9-
J-A03024-24

history; job skills; educational attainment; record of seeking work; and the

local job market, including the availability of employers who are willing to hire

the party.

      In this case, Mother earns $10.00 per hour, working 16 hours per week.

In addition to Mother’s actual earnings, the court imposed an earning capacity

for another 24 hours per week because it believed Mother had the ability to

work fulltime – i.e., 40 hours per week. For these 24 “earning capacity” hours,

the court imposed an hourly wage of $8.00. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the

trial court explained how it arrived at Mother’s earning capacity:

         Mother’s income was assessed based upon her 16 hours of
         [actual] employment with Dial America each week, plus an
         earning capability of $8.00/hour for 24 hours per week.
         While Mother’s education is limited to high school
         graduation, she has maintained employment since high
         school. Specifically, in 2018, she worked at Valesky’s
         grocery store. Thereafter, she worked as a nanny, making
         $12.00/hour. In 2019, she worked at Channellock, with her
         pay ranging from $7.00 to $12.00 per hour. She has also
         worked for AG World Support Systems. Since March 2021,
         Mother has worked in telecommunications for Dial America.
         Her employer permits her to work from home and she
         generally works 16 hours per week at an hourly rate of
         $10.00. Mother testified that she only works 16 hours per
         week because that is how much time [Maternal
         Grandmother] is able to provide her with childcare. Mother
         further testified that she is without transportation, residing
         in an “[unimproved] area of farmland in Venango County.”

         Mother’s income from her 16 hours of work each week does
         not equate to her earning capacity when considering her
         age, her employment history since high school, the variety
         of job skills in her employment history, and the lack of any
         criminal record or apparent health impediments to working.
         While the court is not unsympathetic to the challenges
         presented regarding childcare or the lack of having personal

                                     - 10 -
J-A03024-24

       transportation for employment, based upon the evidence
       presented, the court did not believe that childcare and
       transportation prevent Mother from attaining the very
       minimal level of income assessed. First, Mother was not
       credible regarding her record of seeking work. Although she
       testified that she continues to look for employment, she
       hesitated to respond when questioned regarding when she
       last looked for a job and the number of job applications that
       she has actually placed. When she ultimately responded by
       stating that she continues to look for employment, she
       qualified the responses with “employment that I would be
       able to do within my means.” Similarly, she delayed in
       responding when questioned regarding the number of job
       applications she has placed in the last six months, ultimately
       stating “I don’t remember.” Moreover, Mother testified that
       she will not work more than 16 hours per week due to that
       being the amount of childcare that [Maternal Grandmother]
       is able to provide. There is no evidence to indicate why
       [Maternal Grandmother] is the only childcare option or that
       Mother has even sought alternative care or looked into the
       cost of the same. Mother’s explanation that her lack of a
       personal vehicle is an additional impediment is similarly
       without support as a complete impediment to her
       employment. While Mother did not divulge the location of
       her residence, [FN1] she asserts that she is stranded in a
       remote area without transportation.

          [Footnote 1: The court does not minimize any
          apprehension Mother may have which is attributable to
          interactions with Father resulting in entry of a Protection
          From Abuse order. Mother was, however, [elusive] in
          areas of her testimony beyond just the location of her
          residence.    For example, she hesitated to answer
          questions regarding whether she pays rent, when the last
          time was that she looked for a job, how many job
          applications she put out in the last six months, and how
          she received transportation to the de novo hearing.]

       It is noteworthy, however, that she has maintained
       employment which allows her to work from home. In
       addition, she has a work history which includes serving as a
       nanny. Furthermore, she managed to find transportation to
       Erie for the de novo hearing. While there is no doubt that
       childcare and transportation issues can be challenging,
       “[t]he duty of child support, as every other duty

                                   - 11 -
J-A03024-24

          encompassed in the role of parenthood, is the equal
          responsibility of both [parents]” and “must be discharged by
          the parents even it causes them some hardship.” D.H. v.
          R.H., 900 A.2d 922, 931 (Pa. Super. 2006) [(citations
          omitted)].

T.C.O. at 5-6 (citations to the record omitted).

        On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court’s computation was

erroneous for several reasons.     She claims the court failed to appreciate

Mother’s efforts to obtain gainful employment, and the precarious financial

situation she was forced into when Father forced her to leave her home:

          Mother’s been stranded in this rural area without
          transportation and must either walk miles or beg a ride just
          to get groceries. Mother only has the part-time job because
          the in-Erie employer has permitted her to continue this part-
          time job while working from home. There is no other work
          available to her. Mother has not been able to find other
          work which allows an initial start as a work from home.
          There’s always been an initial requirement to work several
          months at the business site.

Mother’s Brief at 8.

        We understand Mother’s arguments, but our standard of review means

we cannot “re-find facts, re-weigh evidence, and re-assess credibility.” D.R.L.

v. K.L.C., 216 A.3d 276, 286 (Pa. Super. 2019). On these matters, we must

defer to the trial court.   Our role is to determine whether the trial court’s

decision was based on a misapplication of the law, or whether the decision

was manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill

will.

                                     - 12 -
J-A03024-24

      Upon conducting such a review, we discern no abuse of discretion. The

trial court imposed an earning capacity to bring Mother up to a 40-hour

workweek. The court set the earning-capacity wage at $8.00 per hour. In

imposing this lesser wager, it appears the court did factor in Mother’s limited

access to childcare and transportation, at least to some extent.      Although

Mother had a history of earning more than $8.00 per hour, the court did not

set her earning capacity to her highest wage ($12.00) or even her current

wage ($10.00). Instead, the court implicitly recognized the limitations Mother

currently faced.   The trial court has the discretion to weigh these factors.

Given the scant evidence of record, we cannot say that the court’s decision

was manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, Mother’s third issue merits no relief.

      In her fourth appellate issue, Mother claims the trial court erred when it

factored in a child tax credit to determine Mother’s income. In addition to the

earning capacity, the court also included $2,000 in Mother’s annual income,

which it determined she received as a child tax credit. Mother argues the

court never should have considered the tax credit; but even if it were to

consider the credit, the court erroneously determined that the credit was

$2,000 instead of $1,400. We address these arguments in turn.

      To arrive at the monthly net income, the court may consider many types

of income.   Indeed, the definition of “income” is incredibly expansive, and

includes income from any source, subject only to certain deductions.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a) cf. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1). Courts may consider

“other entitlements or lump sum awards” such as “income tax refunds.” See

                                    - 13 -
J-A03024-24

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a)(8)(ii). Moreover, the Rules specifically anticipate the

effect of the Child Tax Credit and require courts to consider tax consequences

when calculating support:

          In order to maximize the total income available to the
          parties and children, the trier-of-fact may award, as
          appropriate, the federal child tax credit to the non-custodial
          parent, or to either parent in cases of equally shared
          custody, and require the other party to execute the waiver
          required by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 152(e).
          The trier-of-fact shall consider the tax consequences
          associated with the federal child tax credit in calculating the
          party's monthly net income available for support.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(f) (emphasis added).

       Mother argues that the trial court did not have to consider the tax credit,

and thus erred when it did so. As these Rules make clear, Mother is incorrect.

       Mother next argues that the trial court use an inaccurate figure when it

considered the child tax credit.         Mother argues that based on her actual

earnings, she was only entitled to a credit of $1,400 – not $2,000. While she

may be correct, it appears that the trial court used the $2,000 figure, because

that it what Mother would have received had she worked fulltime. In other

words, the court’s use of the child tax credit was an extension of its decision

to impose a fulltime earning capacity. This was within the court’s decision.

Mother merits no relief on this point.1

____________________________________________

1 To the extent that the trial court should have used the $1,400 figure, the

difference in the amount of support would have been de minimis – i.e.,
negligible. While the difference in the amount of credit ($600) is substantial,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 14 -
J-A03024-24

       Mother presents a similar claim in her fifth appellate issue. Here, Mother

argues the trial court’s calculation of her monthly net income was erroneous

because it mistakenly believed that Mother’s local tax rate was 1.00% when

it is 1.65%. The trial court opined that this issue should be waived, because

Mother did not mention this discrepancy during the de novo hearing. See

T.C.O. at 4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court

are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). We agree

Mother waived this issue. Mother’s fifth issue merits no relief, either.2

       In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion

when it adopted the conference officer’s support recommendation. The trial

court’s de novo procedure was proper; its use of the February retroactivity

date was supported by the record; and the court did not abuse its discretion

when it assessed Mother’s net income.

       Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

the amount added to Mother’s monthly net income is only $50. Even if we
used Mother’s figures to recalculate the award under Rule 1910.16-3
(“Support Guidelines. Basic Child Support Schedule”) and Rule 1010.16-4
(“Support Guidelines. Calculation of Support Obligation, Formula”), the
difference in the amount of child support would be trivial.
2Even if we considered this issue, again we would find the difference in
amount support to be de minimis.

                                          - 15 -
J-A03024-24

DATE: 04/08/2024

                   - 16 -