child support hearing in Pennsylvania

2019Christianson v. Ely, 575 Pa. 647 , 838 A.2d 630, 638 (2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted) (“In a child support hearing, the main concern is for the welfare of the child.

2019Christianson v. Ely, 575 Pa. 647 , 838 A.2d 630, 638 (2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted) (“In a child support hearing, the main concern is for the welfare of the child.

1997Thus, ... there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak's [putative father's] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother]. *432 Jones, supra, at 106-107 , 634 A.2d at 207 (emphasis added).

1994In considering whether a determination of the putative father’s paternity was necessary to resolve a child support claim made by mother, the court remarked that it was appropriate to do so since there were “no intact family consideration present.” Id. at 107 , 634 A.2d at 207 .

2022This Court has -4- explained the findings of a child support hearing officer are “only advisory and not in any way binding on the trial court.” Ewing v. Ewing, 843 A.2d 1282, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

2020In actuality, the findings of a child support hearing officer are “only advisory and not in any way binding on the trial court.” Ewing v. Ewing, 843 A.2d 1282, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (Pa.Super. 1988)).

2025Strauser, 726 A.2d at 1058 (Newman, J., dissenting).

2024See Doherty v. Doherty, 859 A.2d 811, 812 (Pa.Super. 2004).

2022“Rather, it is the sole province and the responsibility of the [trial] court to set an award of support and even if the evidence before the support hearing officer is adequate to support [his or] her recommendation, the trial court need not adopt it.” Id. (citation omitted and formatting altered); see also Sirio, 951 A.2d at 1196 (“the trial court is obligated to conduct a complete and independent review of the evidence when ruling on exceptions” (citation omitted)).

2020Rather, “it is the sole province and the responsibility of the court to set an award of support and even if the evidence before the Support Hearing Officer is adequate to support her recommendation, the trial court need not adopt it.” Id. (cleaned up).

2020In actuality, the findings of a child support hearing officer are “only advisory and not in any way binding on the trial court.” Ewing v. Ewing, 843 A.2d 1282, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (Pa.Super. 1988)).

2008We also concluded that Mother was underemployed working only part-time, and therefore in accordance with Woskob, supra (“where a party assumes a lower paying job or willfully fails to obtain appropriate employment, the support obligation is determined by his assessed earning capacity”), this court assessed Mother’s annual earning capacity at $31,200, which resulted in her present child support obligation of $608 per month.

1997See, e.g., Jones, 535 Pa. at 106-07, 634 A.2d at 207 “we agree with the Superior Court that there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak’s [putative father’s] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother].”; Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. at 397-401 , 654 A.2d at 576-77 (in addition to consideration of evidence rebutting the pre *446 sumption of paternity, the court considered the fact that there was no longer an intact family, the fact that the child referred to putative father as “my dad,” and the fact that mother ha

1997See, e.g., Jones, 535 Pa. at 106-07, 634 A.2d at 207 “we agree with the Superior Court that there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak’s [putative father’s] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother].”; Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. at 397-401 , 654 A.2d at 576-77 (in addition to consideration of evidence rebutting the pre *446 sumption of paternity, the court considered the fact that there was no longer an intact family, the fact that the child referred to putative father as “my dad,” and the fact that mother ha

1997See, e.g., Jones, 535 Pa. at 106-07, 634 A.2d at 207 “we agree with the Superior Court that there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak’s [putative father’s] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother].”; Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. at 397-401 , 654 A.2d at 576-77 (in addition to consideration of evidence rebutting the pre *446 sumption of paternity, the court considered the fact that there was no longer an intact family, the fact that the child referred to putative father as “my dad,” and the fact that mother ha

1997See, e.g., Jones, 535 Pa. at 106-07, 634 A.2d at 207 “we agree with the Superior Court that there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak’s [putative father’s] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother].”; Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. at 397-401 , 654 A.2d at 576-77 (in addition to consideration of evidence rebutting the pre *446 sumption of paternity, the court considered the fact that there was no longer an intact family, the fact that the child referred to putative father as “my dad,” and the fact that mother ha

1997See, e.g., Jones, 535 Pa. at 106-07, 634 A.2d at 207 “we agree with the Superior Court that there being no intact family considerations present, a determination regarding Trojak’s [putative father’s] paternity is necessary to resolve the child support claim made by Jones [mother].”; Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. at 397-401 , 654 A.2d at 576-77 (in addition to consideration of evidence rebutting the pre *446 sumption of paternity, the court considered the fact that there was no longer an intact family, the fact that the child referred to putative father as “my dad,” and the fact that mother ha