## Facts

- The parties married in 1989, had four children, and later divorced.
- The wife was primarily a stay-at-home parent; the husband earned substantially more income.
- In 2002, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement incorporated into, but not merged with, the divorce decree.
- The agreement required the husband to provide a residence for the wife; if she sold it before payoff, he would pay her $2,393.35 per month (mortgage-equivalent amount including taxes and insurance) for the original mortgage term.
- The agreement also provided “undivided family support” of $3,000 per month for 48 months, then $500 per month per child with a 5% annual increase beginning in 2007.
- The wife purported to waive any right to seek additional child or spousal support based on the husband’s residence-related payments.
- The agreement included a clause requiring the wife, in any action challenging the agreement, to pay the husband’s attorney’s fees and lost income regardless of which party prevailed.
- In 2005, the wife filed a child support action; a support master recommended guideline-based support higher than the agreement’s amounts.
- The trial court adopted the master’s recommendations, ordered guideline child support, and separately ordered continued payment of $2,393.35 per month as part of the property settlement.
- The trial court also found the husband in contempt for noncompliance with the agreement and ordered payment to the wife.
- The husband appealed the support/property orders and the contempt order; the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether the $2,393.35 monthly mortgage-equivalent payments were child support or a property-settlement obligation.
2. Whether a contractual waiver of “additional” child support was enforceable despite the children’s right to adequate support under Pennsylvania law.
3. Whether a fee-shifting clause requiring the wife to pay the husband’s fees and lost income “regardless of the prevailing party” was enforceable where it deterred review of child support arrangements.
4. Whether the trial court properly applied the nurturing parent doctrine by declining to impute higher earning capacity to the wife.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s orders.
- The $2,393.35 monthly payments were properly characterized as a property-settlement obligation rather than child support.
- The purported waiver of additional child support was unenforceable as contrary to public policy, and the guideline-based support award was upheld.
- The deterrent fee-shifting provision was unenforceable to the extent it chilled litigation seeking adequate child support.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the nurturing parent doctrine and declining to impute greater income to the wife.
- The contempt order was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s right to adequate support is independent and cannot be contractually waived by parents; courts may disregard private support terms that fall below guideline levels.
- Property-distribution obligations in a marital settlement agreement are distinct from child support and cannot be used to offset or substitute for guideline-based support absent proper legal basis.
- Contract terms that penalize a parent for seeking judicial review of child support, including fee-shifting provisions triggered “regardless of the prevailing party,” may be void as against public policy.
- Under the nurturing parent doctrine, a court may decline to impute full earning capacity to a primary caregiver of young children when consistent with the family’s historical caregiving arrangement and the children’s welfare.
- Severability clauses permit excision of invalid support-related provisions without voiding the remainder of a settlement agreement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld guideline-based child support notwithstanding a settlement agreement that attempted to trade property-related payments for reduced support, treated the mortgage-equivalent payments as a property obligation, invalidated contractual provisions that limited access to the courts on child-support questions, and approved use of the nurturing parent doctrine to avoid imputing higher income to the primary caregiver.


Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)