Author: bretrgoldstein@gmail.com

Calculating alimony / spousal support in Pennsylvania is affected by a series of actual factors which result in the final alimony calculation.  The factors are numerous and are listed in 23 Pa.C.S. §3701 which states in part as follows:

Factors relevant. –In determining whether alimony is necessary and in determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(1)  The relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties.

(2)  The ages and the physical, mental and emotional conditions of the parties.

(3)  The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.

(4)  The expectancies and inheritances of the parties.

(5)  The duration of the marriage.

(6)  The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party.

(7)  The extent to which the earning power, expenses or financial obligations of a party will be affected by reason of serving as the custodian of a minor child.

(8)  The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.

(9)  The relative education of the parties and the time necessary to acquire enough education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate employment.

(10)  The relative assets and liabilities of the parties.

(11)  The property brought to the marriage by either party.

(12)  The contribution of a spouse as homemaker.

(13)  The relative needs of the parties.

(14)  The marital misconduct of either of the parties during the marriage. The marital misconduct of either of the parties from the date of final separation shall not be considered by the court in its determinations relative to alimony, except that the court shall consider the abuse of one party by the other party. As used in this paragraph, “abuse” shall have the meaning given to it under section 6102 (relating to definitions).

(15)  The Federal, State and local tax ramifications of the alimony award.

(16)  Whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient property, including, but not limited to, property distributed under Chapter 35 (relating to property rights), to provide for the party’s reasonable needs.

(17)  Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable of self-support through appropriate employment.

(c)  Duration. –The court in ordering alimony shall determine the duration of the order, which may be for a definite or an indefinite period which is reasonable under the circumstances.

The bottom line here is that the above factors can influence your capacity to obtain alimony in Pennsylvania.  In practice there really is no specific formulae that allows one to calculate basic alimony – but there are practical guidelines that can give you a general idea of how much you may need to pay or receive.   Although there is no clear formula for the determination of alimony there is one for alimony pendente lite which is as follows: The amount of interim of support is very rigidly determined by a mandated formula.  The formula is based upon the net monthly incomes of the parties.  The formula itself is simple: the dependent spouse gets 40% of the difference in the parties’ net incomes, or, if there are minor children, 30% of the difference in net incomes after subtracting the child support from the payor’s income.

Monthly Net Income – Obligations to previous spouses – Monthly Net Income of the person obtaining Alimony = Difference in Incomes

Difference in Incomes – Child Support Obligation = Total multiplied by 30%/ 40% as noted above = total Alimony.

Please understand that this does not give us a completely accurate amount of alimony – however it does give a general idea of what will be payable by the obligor.  The bottom line here is that if you earn more money than your spouse you will end up paying something and the amount of time is usually about one year of alimony for every two to four years of marriage.  The factors mentioned above will have a direct result on the amount of alimony payable. 

 

In Morgan v. Morgan, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 828, the Pennsylvania Superior Court confronted the issue of what occurs when a spouse provides false information during the negotiations which culminated in a Marital Settlement / Property Settlement Agreement.  In Morgan the Husband and Wife divorced and during the divorce process entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement. The agreement in pertinent part agreed that the Husband would pay the Wife $5,000.00 per month in alimony for a period, after which the parties could petition the Court to modify the payments.   As part of the agreement they entered into a formal “low agreement” which stated that the minimum payment the Court could reduce the alimony to was $1,000.00 per month.

 

The Settlement Agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree in Maryland.  After the agreed upon period had passed the husband, who had moved to Pennsylvania filed a Petition to Modify the Alimony to its lowest possible amount under the Agreement, $1,0000.00.   Wife filed her own Petition to Modify and asked for more than $5,000.00.  The trial Court agreed with the Husband and dropped the alimony to $1,000.00.  The Husband had won.

 

The Wife, of course, did not agree with the Court and appealed the decision.  During the appeal, the Wife found out that the Husband had provided the trial Court totally false and doctored information regarding his income included faked tax returns.  The Wife then filed a Motion to Reopen the Record of the original trial Court and alleged that the Husband had provided false evidence and forged tax returns.   Frighteningly, the Superior Court denied these motions and affirmed the decision of the trial Court. See Morgan v. Morgan, 40 A.3d 194 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum) (“MORGAN II”).  Given what Husband had done, it seems difficult to believe that her motion was denied.

 

Thereafter the Wife filed with the trial Court a Petition to Modify Alimony based on Husband’s fraud. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Husband’s income was, in fact, higher than Husband had presented at the January 2011 Hearing – which was frankly tantamount to an admission by Husband of Fraud. The parties also stipulated that Wife’s 2015 annual income was $43,200.00.

 

The Superior Court indicated that Husband’s fraudulent production and testimony is “within the purview of the unclean hands doctrine.”  The doctrine of unclean hands generally operates only to deny equitable, and not legal, remedies.  This Court has concluded that the Divorce Code specifically states that “[I]n all matrimonial causes, the Court shall have full equity power and jurisdiction and may issue injunctions or other orders which are necessary to protect the interests of the parties or to effectuate the purposes of this part and may grant such other relief or remedy as equity and justice require.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3323(f) (emphasis added).

We first consider whether the trial Court abused its discretion when it determined that application of the doctrine of unclean hands to this case would be inequitable and refused to apply it. It is well settled that a party “who comes into a Court of equity must come with clean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands requires that one seeking equity act fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy at issue.” Lee v. Lee, 2009 PA Super 135, 978 A.2d 380, 387 (Pa. Super. 2009).  Finally, the doctrine of unclean hands “gives wide range to the equity Court’s use of discretion in refusing to aid the unclean litigant” and in exercising this discretion, the equity Court is free to refuse to apply the doctrine if consideration of the record convinces the Court that application of the doctrine will cause an inequitable result.  The facts of this case fall squarely within the doctrine of unclean hands. The Court found that the Husband’s actions violated the unclean hands doctrine and would not let the previous decision awarding less alimony stand.

 

The takeaway here is that it is not a good idea if you want to win your case, to lie to a Court about your income (or anything else for that matter)!

 

 

Often during the negotiations between the parties during a divorce the parties will come to an agreement both regarding the division of marital assets and likewise the nature of custody and support.  The property settlement agreement between the parties reflects how much support should be paid between the parties.  However, circumstances can and do change.  Simply because there has been an agreement incorporated into a divorce decree this does not prevent the parties from challenging the amount of support paid.  Support agreements incorporated into custody agreements or divorce decrees are considered advisory rather than controlling for the purposes of future modifications of support.  E.B. v. A.D.B., 2016 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1923, 153 A.3d 1097 (2016) follows this proposition.

In E.B., Supra. the parties came to an agreement regarding support and then the wife challenged that agreement when she found out that the husband was getting a vacation fund paid for by the Union.  The Court concluded that the money paid by a father’s union job into a union vacation fund was considered income and should have been included in the calculation of Father’s support obligation.

The husband argued that the parties’ Agreement/Amendment overrides the Court’s conclusion that the vacation pay must be included in the calculation of the monthly support payment.  In the agreement the payment was apparently designated as a contribution for Child’s future schooling.  The Court concluded that pursuant to Reisinger v. Kraisinger, 2007 PA Super 197, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. 2007), the Court had the power to require that Father’s vacation pay be included in the calculation of his income for support purposes, because failing to calculate it in that manner would reduce the monthly support payment. See Kraisinger, Supra. 928 A.2d at 340-41 (stating that when the agreement gives “less than can be given to provide for the best interest of the children, it falls under the jurisdiction of the court’s wide and necessary powers to provide for that best interest…”). Simply stated, the Agreement/Amendment is advisory, not controlling and the Court could do what it wanted to change the agreement.  Thus, at least as far as support is concerned, although divorce Decrees are considered final – support agreements are not

 

 

Termination of parental rights is decision which the Court takes immensely seriously.  I.D.N. a K a I.N., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2352 is illustrative of the type of situation which leads to termination of parental rights.  Typically, this procedure is started by an individual or agency which notifies DHS about a child.  Without delving too deeply, certain child care organizations are required by law to notify the authorities if they see evidence of abuse.  Then the Department of Human Services (DHS) becomes involved.   In the case we are discussing the mother had already had her parental rights terminated.  However, the father still had rights.  However, DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.2   The Court held a termination hearing at which a DHS social worker case manager and Father testified.  The Court entered an order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights.

The father filed an appeal of the Court’s determination. 

23 Pa.C.S. 2101-2910 indicates the following:  [i]n a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence considering the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.  In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). See also in re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. 2511(b)).

The facts which led to termination are as follows: Although the father participated in some FSP meetings he did not complete the required course.  The father also never completed a course of treatment for his cocaine addiction and missed (unexcused) 21 of his 42 treatment sessions.  Compounding this father had all positive (cocaine) drug screenings since his last report and did not verify legitimate employment with DHS.  On the positive side he consistently attended supervised bi-weekly visits with the child and completed parenting classes.  The tenor of the testimony from DHS was that the agency was concerned with the child’s safety with the father.

The Court determined that father’s inability to rehabilitate and overcome his cocaine addiction, his failure to progress from supervised to unsupervised visitation with Child, and his inability to complete his FSP basic goals of securing housing and verifying employment warrants termination.  The bottom line for the father here, is that when DHS becomes involved as a parent you MUST fulfill all of the parenting goals that DHS formulates.  If you fail to do so, your chances of getting your child back are poor and your chances of losing your child become better when these failures are also compounded with drug addiction. 

The law states that when the repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his / her physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent then termination is appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania either party can at any time file a Petition to Change the amount of support awarded by the Court if there is a significant change in the financial condition of one or both parties.  A change could be a loss of income due to loss of a job, a serious illness or injury or some other life changing event.

 

In Wingard v. Wingard, 2018 Pa. Super. Unsub. LEXIS 1975, the Father appealed the Court’s order denying and dismissing his Petition for Modification of the Support Order.  The Court not only denied his motion but actually increased his child support payment – a result that obviously displeased the Father.

The Father and mother had three children and the mother filed the original Complaint for Support and the Court awarded same in 2014.  After this award there were numerous petitions filed for Contempt due to the Father being non-compliant in support payments.  They fought over how much support was payable and that Father alleged that he had lost his job.  There were a series of contentious hearings before the Hearing Officer regarding these issues.

Importantly the Hearing Officer found that the Father’s testimony regarding losing his job was not credible and ordered continued payment of child support, raising the amount payable plus arrearage.  Further hearings resulted in judgments noting an almost ten-thousand-dollar arrearage ($10,000.00) and non-compliance regarding payment.  The Father was unable to make payments and served one month of incarceration.

Father filed a Petition to Modify setting forth a series of exceptions to the Hearing Officers calculations – which were rejected by the Hearing Officer who recommended that the Petition be dismissed.  The Father again filed exceptions and there was an oral argument before the Court.  The trial Court denied Father’s Exceptions, denied Father’s Petition to Modify Support, and ordered Father to pay a monthly child support obligation of $1,789.00, plus arrearages.

Father timely appealed.

The appeal concerned whether the Father demonstrated a material change in circumstances to qualify for modifying child support.  McClain v. McClain, 2005 PA Super 130, 872 A.2d 856, 860 (Pa. Super. 2005).  Sets forth the appellate burden of proof – which simplified simply allows a Court to review the trial Court’s determination, and if there was no reasonable way the Court could have reached its decision, the appellate Court can overturn the decision.  “A trial Court’s decision regarding the modification of a child support award will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, namely, an unreasonable exercise of judgment or a misapplication of the law.” Plunked v. McConnell, 2008 PA Super 282, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Courts not only look to the actual wages to determine a child support obligation, but it is their job to see through the paychecks in order to determine what the real earning capacity of an individual is, and they may impute earning capacity if a party is earning below what a reasonably similarly situated individual could earn.  Woskob v. Woskob, 2004 PA Super 37, 843 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2004)  The Pennsylvania Support Guidelines state, in pertinent part, that there “generally will be no effect on the support obligation” if a party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, or is fired for cause.

The appellate Court in Wingard, Supra.  ruled that they accepted the trial Court’s determination that the Father’s testimony was not credible and therefore they dismissed his case.  The statute specifically excludes incarceration as a change in circumstances for the purpose of calculation of child support and therefore the Father did not present a change in circumstances such that he could have his child support lowered.

 

For the purposes of calculating Child Support income is defined as follows by 23 Pa.C.S. §4302:

“Income.” —Includes compensation for services, including, but not limited to, wages, salaries, bonuses, fees, compensation in kind, commissions and similar items; income derived from business; gains derived from dealings in property; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income from life insurance and endowment contracts; all forms of retirement; pensions; income from discharge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership gross income; income in respect of a decedent; income from an interest in an estate or trust; military retirement benefits; railroad employment retirement benefits; social security benefits; temporary and permanent disability benefits; workers’ compensation; unemployment compensation; other entitlements to money or lump sum awards, without regard to source, including lottery winnings; income tax refunds; insurance compensation or settlements; awards or verdicts; and any form of payment due to and collectible by an individual regardless of source.23 Pa.C.S. § 4302

The basic calculations of child support in Pennsylvania essentially add up the net incomes of the two parties and then puts them in a chart ( Per Rule 1910.16-3. Support Guidelines. Basic Child Support Schedule.) which determines total child support payments.  That payment is then split by the incomes of the parties as a percentage of the total amount they earn.  The amount of custody also effects the total amount payable by the parties.  ( Per Rule 1910.16-4. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Support Obligation, Formula.) This calculation gives a basic child support amount which then is changed by a series of deviations. (Rule 1910.16-5. Support Guidelines. Deviation.) Although these deviations are typically limited to monetary and medical issues, the custody Court / Master has relatively wide latitude in providing deviations.  Expenses can also be included and can cause deviations – with the basic expenses being medical expenses and child care expenses, which can include daily child care – and these expenses will be apportioned between the parties. 

This will give you a general idea of how support is calculated.  In further posts we will discuss specific costs and whether Courts include them in the child support calculation.

“You are such a bitch!  You are a bastard!  Why are you acting like such a jerk?  All you care about is the money!”

Attorneys read through the emails provided by clients during preparation for divorce and custody trials.  Sometimes it is hard to handle that two normally intelligent loving people that once said, “I do,” are capable of such cruelty to each other.  And in my opinion the vast, vast, vast (yes, I said it three times earning the ire of the grammar checker) majority of these statements made verbally or in written communication, mean nothing.  They do not influence the outcome of the divorce or custody litigation.  Ask yourself how well ex-spouses typically communicate during the breakup of a marriage or relationship.  Not too many of them have happy feelings toward each other.  Typically, there isn’t much cordiality.

You are not special.  Your emails are not going to be the lodestone of your case.  I promise.

Imagine you are a jurist.  You are compelled to hear this sort of thing constantly.  How much credence to you think they will give to these angry sentiments?  You may think they are important.  You may think to yourself that any Judge that reads these horrible statements will end up hating your opponent in Court.  Guess what?  They have heard it all.  They are tired of hearing it all.

Judges will be much more impressed with rational calm communication between both parties.  If you think that you can go into Court and tell the Judge that your communication problems are wholly the fault of your soon to be ex-spouse, you are for the most part completely deluding yourself and you are displaying little psychological insight into your own behavior and responsibility in the conflict.

The bottom line here is that while all the nastiness in emails may be important to YOU, for the most part they mean nothing to the Jurist and will not have much influence on the outcome of your divorce or your custody battle.   There are certainly communications that are relevant – but insults are fairly typical and of little import.

In A.J.B. v. A.G.B., 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 197, 1, 2018 PA Super 50, the Court decided that a same-sex partner is entitled to loco parentis standing when they have lived with a child and the natural parent in a family setting.  This applies whether this living arrangement is in a traditional family setting or a non-traditional one.  If the same sex partner has developed a parental relationship with the child with the acquiescence and agreement of the natural parent, the same sex spouse is treated as a parent in the eyes of the Court.

As to third parties and standing with respect to custody, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324 provides as follows:

• 5324. Standing for any form of physical custody or legal custody.

The following individuals may file an action under this chapter for any form of physical custody or legal custody:

(1) A parent of the child.

(2) A person who stands in loco parentis to the child.

(3) A grandparent of the child who is not in loco parentis to the child:

(i) whose relationship with the child began either with the consent of a parent of the child or under a court order;

(ii) who assumes or is willing to assume responsibility for the child;

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court and indicated that the same sex ex-wife did have standing in loco parentis.  The ex-wife acted as a parent and established a long-held pattern of parental behavior.  The ex-wife participated in the birth process of the child.  She helped prepare for the arrival of the child.  The ex-wife and mother were married at the time of the child’s birth and clearly demonstrated the intent to form a family and to jointly raise the child.  Notably the ex-wife is listed on the child’s birth certificate and took part in the naming of the child.  Moreover, the parties consulted an attorney regarding termination of the biological father’s rights.  The ex-wife was also involved financially and remained in the child’s life post separation.  Although everyone seemed to be aware that the ex-wife was not the biological parent, she held herself out as a parent.  The ex-wife also established a pattern of acting in day to day existence as a parent – performing parental duties of daily life in school and day care.   Moreover, after the separation the biological mother also gave ex-wife increasing amounts of custody culminating in a Consent Order.

The bottom line here is that same sex parents who establish a pattern of long term parental behavior along with the development of a long lasting parental relationship with the children will have an excellent chance of establishing some loco parentis standing in Pennsylvania Courts.  Please note however that this allows such persons standing and is not necessarily any guarantee of victory in court on custody issues.

 

 

Final divorce decrees are final.  Attempts to overturn them are typically met with a resounding NO by appellate courts.  So, when you resolve your case and sign on the dotted line to divide your marital property, know that your decision is a final one.

In Thompson v. Thompson, 2018 Pa. Super. Unsub. LEXIS 695, *1-3, 2018 WL 1192180, the parties the husband had filed for divorce and the matter had been assigned to a special master in divorce who after hearing evidence made recommendations regarding the division of property.  The wife appealed the master’s determination and the trial Court scheduled a trial date.   

The parties appeared at the trial and informed the Court that they had settled the divorce.  Both parties were asked on the record about the settlement agreement and both parties indicated that they knew what they were doing and recognized the effect the agreement would have on their legal rights regarding the divorce and property settlement.  The Court explained to both parties that they did not need to settle and could have a Court decide on the merits of the case.  Both parties agreed to the divorce and equitable distribution of marital assets.  The parties executed agreements prepared by counsel and the Court issued a Divorce Decree incorporating the property settlement and all other aspects of the divorce. 

After this Decree had been issued Wife, pro se, although still represented, filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.  The wife then filed a notice of appeal, pro se, together with a motion to set aside the settlement agreement. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the settlement agreement.  The wife also failed to follow some procedural grounds as well which resulted in the dismissal. 

The appellate court denied the wife’s motion and appeal relying on Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990), which stated that absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, spouses should be bound by the terms of their agreements.  The Thompson court therefore dismissed the wife’s appeal.

The bottom line here is that you should make sure that you are clear regarding your divorce settlement because once it is entered an order, absent fraud, misrepresentation or duress – you are stuck with the result.

Courts award alimony when there is a huge income disparity between divorced spouses and or a huge difference in wealth.  A married couple typically as part of the marriage make decisions which spouse would live at home and care for the children – and as a result, the spouse doing the child care would have their career and earning capacity negatively affected by this mutually made decision.   Courts try their best to take these marital decisions into account when dividing marital property and determining the need to pay alimony as part of the monetary equities of a divorce.  Notably alimony is not supposed to be based upon gender it is based only on economic factors.  Regarding a Court’s award of alimony, we note the following:

The purpose of an award of alimony is not to reward or punish a party.  However, it is sound social policy to recognize and recompense an individual who has been part of a marital agreement which results in the individual’s inability to adequately support him or herself.  In other words, often, an individual with an advanced degree does not work in their field because they have spent many years performing the important duties of child rearing.  They should not be punished for this decision.   Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the typical lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.  Alimony is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award and reasonably celeritous development of an appropriate employable skill.  When a Court makes the determination as to whether alimony is necessary, the Court must consider numerous factors including the parties’ earnings and earning capacities, income sources, mental and physical conditions, contributions to the earning power of the other, educations, standard of living during the marriage, the contribution of a spouse as homemaker and the duration of the marriage. The Alimony factors that are considered are as follows:

•The relative earnings of both spouses.

•The duration of the marriage.

•The ages and physical, mental and emotional states of the two spouses.

•The sources of income of both spouses. This includes medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.

•The expected future earnings and inheritances of the two spouses.

•The degree to which one spouse has contributed to the other spouse’s education, training or increased earning potential.

•The degree to which a spouse will be financially affected by their position as the custodian of a minor child.

•The standard of living of the spouses established during the marriage.

•The relative education of the parties. This also considers the amount of time it would take for the spouse seeking alimony to acquire the education or training necessary to find employment.

•The relative assets and liabilities of the two spouses.

•The property each spouse brought to the marriage.

•The degree a spouse contributed as a homemaker.

•The relative needs of the two spouses.

•The marital misconduct of either of the spouses during the marriage. “Abuse” is in this context shall have the meaning given to it under Section 6102.

•The federal, state and local tax consequences of the alimony.

•Whether the spouse seeking alimony lacks sufficient property, including items in Chapter 35 relating to property rights, to provide for their reasonable needs.

•Whether the spouse seeking alimony is incapable of supporting themselves through appropriate employment.

Leicht v. Leicht, 2017 PA Super 165, 164 A.3d 1246, 1248 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Teodorski v. Teodorski, 2004 PA Super 313, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super. 2004) (please note large portions of the above paragraph are quotations or paraphrase from the above cases and/ or statutes)

As the Domestic Relations statute and the case law make clear, alimony is not guaranteed.  A Court typically considers the length of the marriage, the number of years of spousal support paid. 

The bottom line here is that all the above factors are reviewed by a Court with an eye towards fashioning a ruling that results in economic justice.  It was the case for many years that a certain amount of alimony or spousal support was given based upon the number of years a spouse did not work and performed household tasks.  However, the more recent tendency is to view the capacity for self-support holistically and to create a ruling that provides time for a springboard to self-sufficiency.