## Facts

- The parties married in 1983, separated in 1996, and had four minor children.
- While custody was litigated, the parties followed temporary shared custody in which the children spent roughly equal time with each parent.
- A 1997 support order required Father to pay Mother $6,132 per month plus insurance and other child-related and household expenses; the court later reduced the monthly obligation to $3,132 after revisions and credits.
- In May 1998, the trial court awarded Father primary legal and physical custody during the school year and Mother primary legal and physical custody during the summer, with defined partial custody periods, alternating holidays and weekends, and vacation time.
- Under the schedule, Father had physical custody about 73% of the year and Mother about 27% of the year.
- Father petitioned to terminate child support, asserting that as primary custodian he should not pay support to Mother.
- A support master recommended continuing support to Mother based largely on Father’s higher income; the trial court ordered support consistent with the guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether a Pennsylvania trial court may order a parent with primary physical custody to pay child support to a parent with partial physical custody.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court.
- The Court held that a trial court may order a primary physical custodian to pay child support to a partial custodian when warranted by the parties’ relative incomes and the children’s reasonable needs.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s support order requiring Father to pay support to Mother despite Father’s greater custodial time.

## Legal Principles

- Child support is determined by the children’s reasonable needs and the parents’ relative financial circumstances, not by a categorical “custodial/noncustodial” label.
- Pennsylvania’s income-shares guidelines and support statutes do not impose a per se bar against ordering support payable to a parent who lacks primary physical custody.
- Trial courts have discretion to structure support orders consistent with the custody schedule and economic realities so the children’s needs are met in both households.
- A substantial disparity in parental incomes may justify support to the lower-income parent who exercises meaningful, recurring partial custody, to avoid markedly different living conditions for the children across homes.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that primary physical custody does not immunize a parent from paying child support to a partial custodian; courts may require such payments when the custody arrangement and income disparity show the order is needed to meet the children’s reasonable needs and welfare.


Colonna v. Colonna, 855 A.2d 648 (Pa. 2004)