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."
|