A.S. v. I.S

130 A.3d 763 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

I.S. (M), has twin sons who were born in Serbia in 1998. M married A.S. (SF) in Serbia and subsequently, the family relocated to Pennsylvania. The parties and the children resided together until 2009 when the parties separated. M and SF informally shared physical custody of the children, who were about eleven years of age. In 2010, SF filed for divorce. M graduated from law school in May 2012 and took the California bar examination in July 2012, planning to relocate to California with the children. SF filed a complaint for custody of the children and an emergency petition to prevent M's relocation, asserting that he stood in loco parentis to the children. The trial court granted the emergency petition, entering an order prohibiting M from leaving the jurisdiction with the children. The trial court entered a temporary custody agreement awarding M primary physical custody and Sf partial custody every other weekend and every Wednesday evening. The parties attended the court-ordered custody mediation, parenting seminar, and custody conciliation. The trial court concluded that SF stood in loco parentis and therefore it denied M's motions. The trial court granted the parties shared physical custody and, thus, expanded SF's custodial time with the children. The trial court entered a final custody order granting the parties shared legal as well as physical custody, with each enjoying alternating weeks. The court prohibited either party from relocating with the children without the permission of the other party or the court. During this time M filed a complaint for child support and the support master dismissed M's complaint reasoning that Stepfather owed no duty to support the children because he is not their biological father. The trial court entered an order affirming the master's decision to dismiss M's support complaint. The trial court cited governing precedent establishing that under Pennsylvania law, a stepparent generally is not liable for child support following the dissolution of a marriage. M appealed. The Superior Court found that no duty of support existed. M appealed.