Blue V Blue Case Study

Numerous situations could arise that would force a court to issue an order for support of a minor child. The parents of the minor child could likely have made the decision to dissolve their marriage through a divorce decree, or the parents of the child may never have married after the child was born. In either scenario, if the paternity of the minor child does not come under question, the issue then becomes who will provide for the support of the child until the child reaches the age of majority.
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act [UIFSA] provides provisions for courts located in the jurisdiction with which the custodial parent resides, to maintain jurisdiction in instances where the noncustodial parent resides in another state. “The UIFSA introduces the principle of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, so that only one support order will be in effect at any given time.”
Most states have implemented a formula of which they use to configure an order of support after a custody decree has been established. In setting an order of support for a child, a court will likely consider the
Blue, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [PA] reversed the decision of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas that had entered an order requiring a father to contribute $4,600 a year towards his son’s college expenses. In addition to the award of support, the trial court had mandated that the son apply for financial aid to compensate for the difference in the tuition costs. The Court recognized in Blue that even though it was not a typical issue of support, their approach in their scope of review did not have to differ. If the parents had included a stipulation into their divorce agreement, as what occurred in Emrick v. Emrick , the Court would likely have decided differently. In this case, there was no agreement but rather, at the time of the initial order by the trial court, the free will of the father to financially contribute to his son’s postsecondary