Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, No. 345 of 1970, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Mary Alice Mickey v. Edward J. Mickey.
Edward J. Tocci, with him Duplaga, Tocci & Palmieri, for relatrix, appellant.
No oral argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Spaulding, J.
[ 220 Pa. Super. Page 40]
Appellant Mary Alice Mickey appeals from an order entered by the Honorable J. Quint Salmon of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, suspending a support order entered against her estranged husband, appellee Edward Mickey.
In October 1969, appellant filed a complaint in the Domestic Relations Court of Beaver County for support of her three daughters, ages 15, 13 and 6.*fn1 On December 3, 1969, a consent agreement was filed whereby appellee agreed to pay the sum of $120 per pay period (every second week) for the support of his children. Appellee ceased making payments in April 1970 and an order of attachment of wages was subsequently entered. Shortly thereafter, appellant moved with the children to Hyattsville, Maryland, apparently to accept a better position with her employer Allegheny Airlines.
In October 1970, appellee filed a petition requesting a reduction in the amount of support. A hearing was
[ 220 Pa. Super. Page 41]
held and although appellee's petition for reduction was denied*fn2 the original order was suspended "until the children are returned to Beaver County or mutually satisfactory visiting arrangements are made." This appeal followed.*fn3
It appears from the lower court's opinion that the suspension was based solely on the fact that appellant and the children were no longer residing in Beaver County. As notes of testimony were not taken at the hearing, we are unable to undertake an independent review of the record and must rely on the lower court's summary and interpretation of the parties' testimony. The court stated:
". . . the defendant complained bitterly about the fact that his wife had moved away from Ambridge, taking the children with her, and that he was not informed of their whereabouts. . . . For all practical purposes [the move to Maryland] has destroyed the visitation privileges of the father because his work schedule does not permit the time necessary for the required travel and his automobile is not adequate for such a trip by reason of its age and poor condition.
In answer to questions from the Court, the wife-plaintiff stated that she requested the transfer to improve her financial situation. Further questions revealed that she had been earning $600.00 per month here and is earning $630.00 per month at Washington, and that her increased living expenses ...