Background
Michael and Jacqueline Rohrbaugh’s long-running custody dispute eventually produced a child-support proceeding for two children. Mother had worked for roughly two decades as a patient-care physician assistant. After moving to California and litigating an unsuccessful relocation request, she did not return to comparable employment. Father obtained primary physical custody under the governing custody order and sought support.
The domestic-relations court examined Mother’s education, professional history, past compensation, employment choices, health claims, and the available labor market. It concluded that she was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and assigned an annual earning capacity of $80,000. The resulting order required her to pay $1,165 per month. Mother contended that the figure was theoretical, ignored practical barriers to employment, and was not tied to actual job opportunities.
Mother also attacked the trial judge’s impartiality. The judge had ruled on earning capacity in March 2025 and later granted a recusal request in May. Mother argued that the later recusal tainted or invalidated the earlier support decision and asserted broader bias arising from the parties’ contentious litigation. The Superior Court considered both the earning-capacity ruling and the procedural effect of recusal.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Kunselman affirmed. Pennsylvania support law permits a court to use earning capacity rather than actual income when a parent has willfully failed to obtain or maintain appropriate employment. The calculation is fact-specific and may consider age, health, training, work history, earnings record, child-care responsibilities, and employment opportunities. Appellate review is deferential, asking whether the support court abused its discretion rather than recalculating income from scratch.
The $80,000 figure was supported by Mother’s long professional career, qualifications, prior earnings, and capacity to work. The court was entitled to weigh her explanations and reject claims it did not find persuasive. Earning capacity does not have to equal the highest historical salary, nor must it be established by proof of one specific open position waiting for the parent. Here, the amount reflected a moderated assessment of what Mother could realistically earn in light of the full record.
The later recusal did not retroactively void the March ruling. The judge decided earning capacity before stepping aside, and recusal is generally prospective absent a demonstrated legal basis to undo prior orders. Adverse rulings and dissatisfaction with litigation outcomes do not by themselves establish partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Mother’s additional assertions in her reply brief either lacked record support or improperly attempted to introduce new issues.
Key Takeaways
- A support court may impute earning capacity when a parent voluntarily remains unemployed or underemployed despite marketable professional training and experience.
- The amount may rest on the complete vocational record and need not correspond to a single identified job opening.
- Appellate courts defer to supported credibility findings and will not substitute their preferred income calculation for the support court’s reasonable assessment.
- A judge’s later recusal ordinarily does not invalidate orders entered before recusal, and adverse decisions alone do not prove bias.
Why It Matters
Rohrbaugh gives Pennsylvania domestic-relations lawyers a practical picture of the evidence relevant to imputed income. A party seeking earning capacity should develop work history, licenses, training, prior compensation, local or remote opportunities, and the reasons for leaving the workforce. The responding parent should offer concrete evidence of health limits, licensing obstacles, diligent job searches, child-care burdens, and realistic compensation rather than rely on current zero income.
The recusal discussion is also important in heavily litigated family cases. Counsel should distinguish grounds supporting a judge’s prospective withdrawal from the much more demanding showing required to reopen earlier decisions. Challenges should identify extrajudicial bias or specific prejudicial conduct and be preserved in the principal brief. The decision is nonprecedential, but it offers a current guide to how Superior Court reviews earning-capacity determinations and prevents later recusal from becoming an automatic collateral attack on every prior support order.