STYLE V. SHAUB 955 A.2d 403 (2008) CASE BRIEF

STYLE V. SHAUB

955 A.2d 403 (2008)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Style (M) appeals an order dismissing a petition for child support filed on behalf of her adult son, Dustin Shaub (S).

FACTS: M and Ronald Shaub (F) married on August 31, 1984 and S, was born on January 3, 1987. In November 1999, they separated and F filed a petition requesting child support for S, which was granted. The couple divorced on July 5, 2002. On January 3, 2005, S turned 18 years old and in July 2005 he completed high school. On July 14, 2005, after finding that F had paid all arrears and fees, the trial court entered an order terminating child support for S. On October 25, 2006, M filed a new complaint for child support on S's behalf. S had psychiatric and medical limitations that precluded him from maintaining gainful employment to support himself. The trial court dismissed M's complaint. On February 7, 2007, M filed a pro e request for an evidentiary hearing, which was granted. Testimony revealed that S has had a long history of psychiatric and medical disabilities, including diagnoses for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ('ADHD'), Oppositional Defiant Disorder ('ODD'), dysthymia (also referred to as chronic depression), and Atypical Autism. S testified that he had been taking various medications for these conditions for most of his life. S had attempted three jobs, with mixed success. S could handle a job as a kitchen worker or custodian staff, and that while he worked slowly he could handle a variety of tasks and was courteous and cooperative. S reads at an 8th grade level, can do mathematics at a 9th grade level, and has a full scale IQ of 78. The trial court dismissed M's complaint for two reasons. It found that because M and S failed to respond to the Rule 1910.19(e) notice from the Domestic Relations Office, they were estopped from demanding a new support order. The trial court determined that they presented insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that S, having reached the age of majority and completed high school, was unable to engage in profitable employment at a supporting wage. M appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner