Appeal, No. 208, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1961, No. F-6-2, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Anna Marie Haley v. Thomas E. Haley. Order affirmed.
George J. McConchie, for appellant.
J. Harold Hughes, Assistant District Attorney, with him Ralph B. D'Iorio, First Assistant District Attorney, and Jacques H. Fox, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Montgomery, and Flood JJ. (watkins, J., absent).
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 236]
This is an appeal from an order against a father in the amount of $50 per week for the support of two minor children. The important question before us is the appellant's ability to pay this amount. The children's need is not disputed.
The relatrix first petitioned for support for her children on May 17, 1961, and a hearing was scheduled for July 25, 1961. The day before the scheduled hearing the relatrix and the appellant agreed upon an order of $30 per week for the support of the two children and "in addition defendant to assume all outstanding debts and carrying charges for the home". A formal order of court was entered in the same amount and on the same terms as set forth in the agreement. The amount of the "outstanding debts" and "carrying charges" were not listed in the order, but in paragraph five of the appellant's answer to the petition for increased support, which is now before us, the appellant
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 237]
admitted that he had agreed to pay monthly obligations totaling $318.07, therein listed.
At the time of the original order the appellant was president of two food corporations in Virginia and was earning $200 and expenses per week. His take-home pay was approximately $165 and the total which he agreed and was ordered to pay for support, including carrying charges and debts, amounted to approximately $104 per week, which was roughly 63% of his take-home pay.
On August 4, 1961, eleven days after the entry of the original order, the appellant voluntarily resigned his position. He claimed that he was a nervous wreck at that time and resigned because of domestic problems. Later he made one venture into business and then accepted his present position as a food consultant in New York City.
The appellant's present earnings are $150 per week. His take-home pay is $123.81, and the order of $50 per week for the support of the two children is now ...