Rule 1910.19.Support. Modification. Termination. Guidelines as Substantial Change in Circumstances. Overpayments.

Comment. : Concerning subdivision (c), a party’s monthly net income may be based upon an earning capacity determination pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4). Subdivision (h) incorporates Pa.R.Civ.P 1910.16 (rescinded) and Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-4(f) (rescinded) for subsequent modification proceedings due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub.L. No. 115-97). Concerning subdivision (h)(2), see 23 Pa.C.S. § 4348(d) for additional matters required to be specified in a support order if arrearages exist when the order is entered. Concerning subdivision (h)(6), this provision is necessary to comply with various state and federal laws relating to child support enforcement. It is not intended to affect an unallocated order’s tax consequences. Concerning subdivision (h)(8), the procedure relating to motions for reconsideration is set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1930.2. Historical Commentary The following commentary is historical in nature and represents statements of the Committee at the time of rulemaking: Explanatory Comment—1981 Subdivision (a) sets forth a rule of pleading. It requires the petition for modification or termination to aver ‘‘specifically’’ the reasons for the relief sought. Modification of a prior order requires a ‘‘material and substantial change in circumstances.’’ This change in circumstances should be alleged specifically. Subdivision (b) requires that a petition for modification or termination follow the same procedure as an original complaint. The Rule recognizes that the domestic relations office conference may serve the same beneficial purposes that it serves in an original proceeding. These benefits, settlement or, if there is no settlement, the assembly of all necessary information will aid the court in the prompt disposition of these petitions. Explanatory Comment—1993 Existence of Guidelines as Substantial Change in Circumstances. In its opinion in Newman v. Newman, 409 Pa. Super. Ct. 108, 597 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 1991), the Superior Court held that enactment of the guidelines does not constitute a substantial change in circumstance which could serve as the basis for modification of a support order. The amended rule allows the trier of fact to consider new or revised rules as a change in circumstances where the change in the guidelines, either by itself or in combination with other factors, is material and substantial. Explanatory Comment—2000 The Pennsylvania Child Support Enforcement System (‘‘PACSES’’) is electronically linked to a variety of governmental and private agencies and institutions. This linkage enables PACSES to immediately locate and identify an obligor’s income, income sources and assets. Rule 1910.19 is amended to provide that their identification through these automated methods provides a basis for modifying both the current support obligation and the rate of repayment on either past due or overdue support. Identification through means other than PACSES continues to provide the same basis for modification. While identification of income sources or assets provides a basis for modification, this rule is not intended to prevent a court from ordering that the income or assets be frozen and seized under Rule 1910.26 pending the hearing on the petition for modification. Such relief remains available under Rule 1910.26 governing appropriate interim or special relief. See Rule 1910.1 Explanatory Comment. Nor is this rule intended to affect the court’s ability to seize income or assets under Rule 1910.20 to secure an overdue support obligation. Explanatory Comment—2002 Although support orders do not terminate automatically, many obligors are unaware of the necessity of filing a petition to terminate a child support order when the child becomes emancipated. As a result, old orders have continued to charge long after the subject child has become an adult. New subdivision (e) is intended to address this problem by giving the obligee notice of a proposed modification or termination of the order and the opportunity to object. If no objection is made, or if the obligee fails to respond with a reason to continue the order, the rule gives the court the authority to terminate or modify the charging order, depending upon whether or not other children are covered under the order. Explanatory Comment—2006 New subdivision (f) addresses an increasing multiplicity of circumstances in which the continued existence of a court-ordered obligation of support is inconsistent with rules or law. An obligor with no known assets whose sole source of income is Supplemental Security Income or cash assistance cannot be ordered to pay support under Rule 1910.16-2. Likewise, an obligor with no verifiable income or assets whose institutionalization, incarceration or long-term disability precludes the payment of support renders the support order unenforceable and uncollectible, diminishing the perception of the court as a source of redress and relief. Often, the obligor is unable or unaware of the need to file for a modification or termination, or the parties abandon the action. In those circumstances, the courts are charged with managing dockets with no viable outcomes. Both the rules and the federal guidelines for child support under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act provide for circumstances under which a support order shall not be entered or under which a child support case may be closed. Subdivision (f) expands the authority of the courts to respond to case management issues brought about by changes in circumstances of the parties of which the courts become aware through the expansion of automated interfaces and data exchanges.