The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I agree with Judge Jacobs that it is for the court below to determine the ability of the father to pay $12.00 a week to assure the college education of his daughter. The opinion of the lower court is sufficiently supported by competent evidence to warrant the order.
The lower court found that the business partnership of the father and his present wife had net earnings, before taxes, of $18,670.00. It is true that the father’s present wife is not obligated to contribute to the support of his daughter by a prior marriage. Nonetheless, these figures do reflect that his present family is not dependent solely on the $7000.00 net income claimed by him.
The majority is also concerned with the fact that the father’s health has deteriorated in the past year due to pulmonary emphysema, which is a condition with varying degrees of severity. In this case, the lower court found that, “at the time of the hearing, however, there was no evidence that his income had been or would be affected materially by this condition.”
In addition, Commonwealth v. Weidner, 30 Lehigh L. J. 184 (1963), which involved this same father who *119 refused to pay support for his college-age son, should have no hearing on the instant casé. In Weidner the court found that the son “. . . is not of sufficient ability to warrant the imposition of an order to provide for Gary. . . . The exercise of this defendant’s judgment not to contribute to Gary’s education is understandable in the light of his testimony that his son had failed to demonstrate a real interest in college work and that his attitude could not be characterized as benignant.” In the instant case, however, there is no question as to the daughter’s intellectual capacity. Indeed, a closer inspection of the 1963 support action reveals that the father, who at that time claimed a net income of $5000.00 and was supporting his aged mother, was ordered to pay support of $25.00 a week for this daughter who was then a high school student. I cannot understand, therefore, why a support order of $12.00 a week in 1966 is excessive, since he now claims a net income of $7000.00.
In my opinion, the majority has been too quick to find that the $12.00 a week support order would work an “undue hardship” on the father. In so doing, it fails to consider the vital importance of education, especially a college education, in our society.
In Commonwealth v. Gilmore, 97 Pa. Superior Ct. 303, 308 (1929), we recognized that “paternal duty involves, in addition to provision for mere physical needs, such instruction and education as may be necessary to fit the child reasonably to support itself and to be an element of strength, rather than one of weakness, in the social fabric of the state.” We held in Gilmore that a father may be required to furnish an education beyond the minimum required by law to a child who is over the age of sixteen years. In that year, 1929, there was a ratio of 7.88 undergraduate resident degree-credit students enrolled in institutions of higher learning to every 100 persons aged 18-21. By 1963, the ratio had risen to *120 33.75 such students to every 100 persons aged 18-21. See Digest of Educational Statistics, IT. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 77, Table 53 (1965 ed.). It has been projected that by 1974, the total degree-credit enrollment in all institutions of higher education would rise to 8,689,000 from the 1964 level of 4,950,173. See Projections of Educational Statistics to 1974-75, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 7, Table 4 (1965 ed.).
These statistics reflect the ever-increasing importance of higher education in our highly complex world. This education is not a luxury; it is a necessity for our young people of ability who are seeking to assume a useful, meaningful role in our society. The majority opinion, by implication, approves of the father’s suggestion that the daughter should not attend college but should accept employment which is available to her at $85.00 a week. This approach is unrealistic in light of the increasing educational demands of employers. Perhaps the daughter could obtain employment at $85.00 a week at the present time. The opportunity for suitable employment in the future may be seriously impaired, however, if she is not provided presently -with the necessary skills and training which will enable her to adjust to employers’ changing standards and requirements. Only through higher education can we assure that our young, qualified people will continue to contribute to our society to the fullest extent of their abilities.
In summary, not only has the father failed to demonstrate undue hardship, but he has, in the past, paid double the amount of the present support order. The daughter is an outstanding student. The income of the father and his present wife for their support and maintenance is substantial. For these reasons I would not vacate the support order imposed by the lower court.