## Facts

- The parents separated in 1974; a support order for their three children was entered in 1975 and later modified as the children aged out.
- By 1987, only the parties’ daughter, Paula (a minor), remained subject to the support order.
- Paula previously lived with her father for a period during high school; later she returned to live with her mother without a contemporaneous modification of the order.
- On December 29, 1987, the parties entered a stipulation incorporated into a court order requiring the father to pay $900 per month for Paula, retroactive to June 15, 1987, and providing that any future change in Paula’s physical custody would make the order “automatically subject to review.”
- Paula’s mother later took an internship in another state; Paula chose to remain near her high school in Pennsylvania and, with her mother’s help, rented a one-bedroom apartment.
- The father offered to have Paula live with him and asserted he would support her in his home; Paula refused, citing conflict with her stepmother.
- The mother sought reimbursement from the father for Paula’s apartment-related expenses; the father resisted and sought to end support.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s duty to support an unemancipated minor may be terminated when the minor unilaterally chooses to live in an apartment rather than in the parent’s home, despite the parent’s offer of housing and support.
2. Whether a change in the child’s living arrangement justifies termination of support, or instead warrants review and possible modification of the support order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal of the trial court’s termination of support.
- The Court held that the father could still be compelled to support his minor daughter notwithstanding her unilateral decision to live in an apartment.
- The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with the continued duty of support, with the lower court permitted to consider the living arrangement when determining the appropriate amount.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a continuing legal duty to support unemancipated minor children; that duty does not end solely because the child lives outside the obligor parent’s household.
- A minor’s voluntary departure from a parent’s home, standing alone, does not establish emancipation; emancipation turns on actual independence and self-support, not merely residence.
- Changed residential circumstances typically trigger review and potential modification of support, rather than automatic termination, particularly where an existing order contemplates review upon custody or residence changes.
- Support determinations remain anchored in the child’s needs and welfare and the parents’ ability to pay; termination should not operate as a sanction for a minor’s residential choice.

## Conclusion

The court held that a minor’s unilateral choice to live in an apartment rather than with an offering parent does not, by itself, terminate the parent’s support obligation; the proper remedy is review and possible adjustment of support based on the changed circumstances.


Oeler v. Oeler, 594 A.2d 649 (Pa. 1991)