She Can't Sue Her Father for Back Support!
The adult daughter of a failed marriage should not be able to sue her father to enforce a child support provision from her parents' property settlement agreement that would benefit her directly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in a case of first impression.
However, the six justices that heard Chen v. Chen split as to whether the result should be based on contract law or public policy grounds.
Two justices argued the majority should not have pointed to public policy concerns in their opinion, while two other justices reasoned that the public policy questions raised by the case amounted to the matter's essential issue.
In so holding, the justices reversed both a Northampton County, Pa., trial court and a three-judge panel of the Superior Court.
The Superior Court panel had ruled in December 2003 that Richard Chen should have been obligated to supplement his $25-per-week child support payments to daughter Theresa in accordance with raises in his salary during the time she was growing up. The panel affirmed the trial court's order that Richard pay $59,292 in resulting arrearages to Theresa, who was born in 1982.
But the Supreme Court majority in Chen, while noting that Pennsylvania contract law precedent supported a reversal of the Superior Court, focused on the practical aspects of child-rearing in modern America.
"As a society, we allow parents to make decisions concerning how to allocate their incomes between savings and spending, between themselves and their children, and between individual children," Justice Max Baer wrote on behalf of the majority. "While parents may include their children in discussions of expenditures, especially as children age, the final decision regarding the family's budget is for the parent or parents."
Baer was joined by Justice Sandra Schultz Newman.
In a separate opinion, Justices Thomas G. Saylor and J. Michael Eakin asserted the majority did not need to rely exclusively on the contract law issues in the case, and the public policy concerns raised were more vital.
Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy and Justice Ronald D. Castille, however, wrote in concurring opinions that Chen could be easily decided on contract law bases alone and that the public-policy concerns need not have been addressed by the majority.
Richard Chen and former wife Wheamei Jenq Chen were married for six years while both were students at Lehigh University. According to opinions filed in Chen, the couple had two children before separating: a son, born in 1978, and Theresa, born in February 1982. After their divorce, the son went to live with Richard, while Theresa remained in Wheamei's custody.
Pursuant to the child support provision of their property settlement agreement, Richard agreed to pay $25 per week to Wheamei for Theresa's support, and he also submitted to having his payments increased following any salary raises in conjunction with the Northampton County Domestic Relations Guidelines.
Wheamei has never sought support increases; she later stated that their marriage ended due to physical abuse and that she was afraid of Richard. According to the opinions, Wheamei sought child support arrearages in April 2000. After her 18th birthday, Theresa petitioned to intervene in Wheamei's action in May 2000. The trial court deemed Theresa an appropriate third-party beneficiary and awarded her arrearages in June 2002 following a nonjury trial. (Wheamei withdrew her petition before the trial began).
The Superior Court, in a lead opinion penned by now-President Judge Kate Ford Elliott, affirmed.
In his majority opinion, which was filed Monday, Baer wrote that the justices' contract law analysis of Chen centered on Section 302 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which was adopted into state law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its 1983 decision in Guy v. Liederbach.
