Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARIE CIANFARINI v. ANTHONY CIANFARINI (09/25/81)

filed: September 25, 1981.

MARIE CIANFARINI
v.
ANTHONY CIANFARINI, APPELLANT



No. 681 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court Division, at No. D.R. 261447.

COUNSEL

Julius E. Fioravanti, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Fredrick Smith, Philadelphia, did not file a brief on behalf of appellee.

Cercone, President Judge, and Wickersham and Brosky, JJ. Wickersham, J., dissents.

Author: Brosky

[ 291 Pa. Super. Page 37]

This is an appeal from the order of support entered February 26, 1980 directing appellant-father to pay the sum of $75 per week for the support of his two children: $45 per week for Steven and $30 per week for Doreen. At the time of the filing of the complaint, Steven was eighteen and

[ 291 Pa. Super. Page 38]

Doreen twelve. The parties were divorced in 1976. The central issue for our determination is whether the court below abused its discretion in ordering appellant to pay the sum of $45 per week for the support of his son Steven, who lives at home with appellee and attends college.*fn1 We reverse and remand.

The record shows that prior to the filing of the complaint for support, appellant had been voluntarily providing $50 per week for the support of his children. When Steven turned eighteen and began attending college, Mr. Cianfarini stopped contributing to his support, thereby decreasing his voluntary contribution by $25. However, appellant did contribute the sum of $1,000 towards the first year of Steven's college education, to supplement a grant and a student loan.

Appellant contends that the award of support of $75 is unjustified by the evidence and creates an undue hardship upon him. He also argues that the court below erred in not giving due regard to the one thousand dollars already contributed by him to his son for educational expenses.

At the outset, we note that it is not the function of this court, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, to reverse where there was sufficient evidence to sustain the court below. Commonwealth ex rel. Schmidt v. Schmidt, 223 Pa. Super. 20, 296 A.2d 855 (1972); Commonwealth ex rel. Nicholson v. Groff, 169 Pa. Super. 12, 82 A.2d 536 (1951).

The rule regarding a father's duty to provide a college education for his child was stated in Commonwealth ex rel. Williams v. Williams, 242 Pa. Super. 550, 552, 364 A.2d 410, 411 (1976):

[A] father has no duty to aid in providing a college education for his child, no matter how deserving, willing or able the child may be, unless the father has sufficient estate, earning capacity or income to enable him to do ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.