stating: “Since Father’s support obligation in this case is defined in the post-nuptial agreement, his duty is contractual, not legal”
How later courts described this case
- stating: “Since Father’s support obligation in this case is defined in the post-nuptial agreement, his duty is contractual, not legal”
- “Estrangement can operate to relieve or lessen a parent’s duty to pay support toward a college education when that parent has made a good-faith and concerted effort to establish and develop a relationship with his or her child, and the child has unquestionably and willfully rejected the parent’s outstretched hand,” even in certain cases involving a contractual obligation as opposed to a judicially imposed one
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
Although I must agree with my colleagues that the order entered by the trial court is unusual and in some respects unsupportable by the record, 1 it seems clear to me that the order does not constitute a final determination of the dispute between the parties. For this reason I would quash the instant appeal. If the appeal is not quashed, appellant will most certainly have the right to a second review after the amount of the order has been determined finally. To permit piecemeal appeals does not serve the efficient use of judicial resources and, therefore, should not be allowed. See: Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89 , 501 A.2d 211 (1985).
. Although it has not been made an issue in this case, in my judgment it is improper for a court to direct the Domestic Relations Officer to determine the amount of a support order where adverse proceedings have been heard by the court.