Appeal from the ORDER January 16, 1996 In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, CIVIL, NO. 94-3440 CIVIL TERM. Before BAYLEY, J.
Before: Hudock, Saylor, Hoffman, JJ. Opinion BY Hoffman, J.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoffman
This is an appeal from an order entered on January 16, 1996, dismissing appellant Sharon (McMichael) Riddle's petition to modify a child support agreement. Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to schedule a hearing on [appellant's] request for a modification of the child support provision of the marital settlement agreement pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. Section 3105(B)?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by entering an order which acted to discriminate against [appellant] by treating her differently and denying her the same rights as other child support obligers in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to apply the rules, statutes, policies and procedures used by the Domestic Relations office and by failing to refer the matter to the Domestic Relations office, wasting precious court time which offends public policy and is not in keeping with the concept of judicial economy?
Appellant mother, Sharon (McMichael) Riddle, and appellee father, Jeremy J. McMichael, are the parents of Mark Andrew McMichael, born May 4, 1990, and Zachary James McMichael, born September 17, 1992. On August 22, 1994, the parties entered into a written marital agreement in which appellant agreed to pay appellee $337.00 per month in child support. Furthermore, the agreement provided that:
No modification or waiver of any of the terms hereof shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties and no waiver of any subsequent default of the same or similar nature.
Trial Court Order 1/16/96. On October 11, 1994, a decree in divorce was entered which incorporated the August 22, 1994 agreement. Appellant mother subsequently filed a petition to decrease her child support agreement, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.
Initially, we note that a child support order will be overturned only where it is found that the trial court abused its discretion either by a misapplication of the law or an unreasonable exercise in judgment. Scheidemantle v. Senka, 371 Pa. Super. 500, 538 A.2d 552 (1988).
Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying her petition and determining that the child support agreement ...