Opinion
May 2, 1930.
July 10, 1930.
Poor laws — Order of support — Grandparent — Grandchildren — Sufficient ability — Excessive order — Act of May 14, 1925, P.L. 762, Section 10, (Poor Code).
On a petition under the Act of May 14, 1925, P.L. 762, Section 10, (Poor Code), to compel the defendant, the paternal grandparent, to maintain and support two of his grandchildren, the evidence disclosed that the children were of tender age, poor and unable to maintain themselves and that the mother and the maternal grandparents were not of sufficient ability to support them. The defendant was a man of means and able to pay the order of $125.00 per month, as fixed by the court below. It appeared, however, that the order was in excess of that required for the support of the grandchildren in their station of life.
In such case the order that the grandfather pay $125.00 per month for the support of the grandchildren will be reduced to $100.00 per month.
Poor laws — Order of support — Payments — Date of.
An order of support directing that payments relate back to the date of the presentation of the petition will be modified so that payment will begin from the date of the order.
Poor law — Order of support — Negligence.
A court of quarter sessions has no authority to require a defendant to enter a recognizance with approved surety conditioned upon the compliance with the order of the court on a petition for maintenance. Attachment for contempt is the statutory method of enforcing the order.
Appeal No. 116, April T., 1930, by defendant from judgment of Q.S., Jefferson County, January Sessions, 1928, No. 16, in the Proceedings of Harry L. Forcey.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Modified.
Petition for order of support for grandchildren. Before DARR, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court ordered the defendant to pay $125 per month, payment to relate back to the date of the petition. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
Thompson Bradshaw of May Bradshaw, and Brosius Brosius, for appellant.
S.C. Pugliese, and with him Charles J. Margiotti, W.M. Gillespie, Edward Friedman and A.M. Liveright, for appellee.
Argued May 2, 1930.
Margaret Row Forcey presented her petition reciting that her children were of tender age, poor and unable to maintain themselves, that she and the maternal grandparents were of not sufficient ability to do so and that the court should order the paternal grandfather to support them.
The allegations set forth in the petition were supported by evidence. The mother and the grandparents are not able to support the children. An uncle, himself not a man of means but charitably inclined, has supported them for sometime contributing $125 a month to the support of his sister's family and the minors.
There is interjected into the case a statement that the children have an estate of their own. It is true that their father who died sometime ago did leave an estate, but the evidence is very unsatisfactory as to the amount and as to when it will be distributed and for present purposes we cannot regard it, neither did the lower court.
The grandfather is a man of means and would be abundantly able to pay $125 a month, the amount fixed by the lower court, but this whole amount is not required for the support of the two grandchildren in the station of life in which they are living. We all think $100 would be ample and we will modify the order accordingly.
The order also provides for the payment of the monthly allowance from the date of the filing of the petition. The order should have required payments to be made from the date of the decree. There was no authority in the lower court to order payments to relate back to the date of the presentation of the petition. See Com. v. Herman, 97 Pa. Super. 453, and cases there cited. The court also in its order required the respondent to enter a recognizance with approved surety in the sum of $5,000, conditioned for his compliance with the order. This part of the matter as is pointed out in The Matter of Lucy Jones, 96 Pa. Super. 480, is not authorized by law.
The order of the lower court is modified so as to change the sum payable from $125 to $100 per month; the payments to begin from the date of the order and the provision requiring the respondent to enter recognizance is stricken out. The order of the lower court as thus modified is affirmed; the appellant to pay the costs.