from the Order Entered May 6, 2016 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Somerset County Domestic Relations at No(s): 0005402
BEFORE: LAZARUS, SOLANO, AND STRASSBURGER, [*] JJ.
County Children and Youth Services (CYS) appeals from the
order entered May 6, 2016, terminating H.B.R.'s
(Father's) child support obligation to his son B.R.
(Child). After careful review, we affirm.
trial court summarized the pertinent factual and procedural
history as follows.
On August 22, 2013, [Child] was put into placement pursuant
to court order, with placement costs totaling approximately
$24.00 per day. CYS filed a complaint for support against
[Father] on September 6, 2013. A conference was scheduled for
October 15, 2013, after which [the trial court] entered an
interim order for support against [Father] in the amount of
[$220.00] per month, 1 including, pursuant to the
support guidelines, a $197.51 support obligation, and $22.49
1 The interim order specified $220.00 per month
however the case file includes an order of Attachment of
Unemployment Compensation Benefits which directs that $230.00
per month be attached. Similarly an income withholding for
support form communicated to GNH Trucking, Inc., presumably
[Father's] employer at the time, also specified that
$230.00 per month be withheld. [The trial court] is unsure of
the reason for the [$10.00] discrepancy between our interim
order and the attachment/withholding forms.
On October 29, 2015, [Father] filed a petition for
modification of an existing support order wherein [Father]
sought termination of his support obligation because [Child]
had turned eighteen years old and graduated from high school.
On November 3, 2015, [the trial court] scheduled a
modification conference for November 25, 2015, and on
December 2, 2015, [the trial court] terminated the support
order without prejudice, having stated the following
rationale: "[Child] has graduated from high school and
has reached the age of emancipation. [Child] still remains in
placement, but for child support purposes[, ] [Child] has
On December 21, 2015, CYS filed a demand for hearing
contesting the termination of [Father's] support
obligation because, "[Child] is not emancipated. [Child]
continues to be a dependent child under the jurisdiction of
the [lower court]. Therefore [Father] is still responsible
for support while [C]hild is not in [Father's]
care." The [trial court] scheduled a de novo
hearing for January 19, 2016; however, [Father] was scheduled
for a two-day criminal jury trial beginning on that date.
[The trial court] therefore rescheduled the de novo
hearing for March 10, 2016.
In the meantime, on January 20, 2016, [Father's] jury
trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, and [Father] was
sentenced on April 18, 2016 to, inter alia, a
minimum of thirty-six months, and a maximum of one hundred
twenty months, in a state correctional institution. On March
10, 2016 - that is, between [Father's] guilty verdict and
his sentencing-[the trial court] conducted the de
novo hearing, and  took the matter under advisement.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/6/2016, at 1-2 (unnecessary
capitalization and some footnotes omitted).
6, 2016, the trial court issued an order re-affirming its
December 2, 2015 order terminating Father's support
obligation, "without prejudice to the right of CYS to
pursue recovery under 62 Pa.C.S. § 704.1(e)."
This timely-filed appeal followed.
raises the following issues on appeal, which we have
reordered for ease of disposition.
[I.] Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion
or committed an error of law by terminating the ...