37 Year Old Son Was Not A Dependent Child To Cause A Forfeiture of Father’s Share Of Son’s Estate
Forfeiture of parent’s share under dependent child statute denied where the alleged failure to support occurred during the decedent’s adulthood, and where the decedent’s physical disability set in during his adulthood as well.
Juanita Small, administrator of the estate of decedent Charles Small, appealed from the order of the superior court that affirmed the orphans’ court’s decree. Decedent suffered gunshot wounds at the age of 18 that rendered him a paraplegic. At 37, decedent died intestate without a spouse or issue. Appellant, decedent’s mother, was granted letters of administration. Decedent’s estate later recovered $90,000 wrongful death award.
Appellant filed a petition alleging that decedent’s father had forfeited his parent’s share of the estate by failing to perform his duty of support. At a hearing before the orphans’ court, the parties contested whether decedent was a “dependent” child under the statute. Appellant argued for an informal construction of the term, while father argued that the statute required decedent be declared incompetent, incapable of handling his own affairs, or in of guardianship. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that decedent could perform all of life’s ordinary activities despite his paraplegia, although he did require the assistance of a home health aide with his colostomy bag. Decedent also supported himself through Social Security benefits, supplemented with funds from appellant.
The orphans’ court issued a decree ruling that decedent was not a dependent child, agreeing with father’s position. Thus, the court declined to order forfeiture of father’s share of decedent’s estate, noting that if decedent wished to disinherit his father, he could have done so by means of a will.
Appellant appealed to the superior court, which affirmed, agreeing with the orphans’ court that decedent was not a dependent child under the statute.
On appeal from the superior court, the court affirmed. The court rejected appellant’s contention that the term “dependent child” should be understood in an informal or colloquial sense. The court noted that while emancipated minor children had a right to support from their parents, decedent was 37 at the time of his death and thus was not a minor child during the final years of his life when father was alleged to have failed to support him. The court acknowledged that a parent’s obligation to support a minor child could continue into adulthood if the child becomes disabled during his or her minority, but again the court noted that decedent was paralyzed when he was 18. Ultimately, the court ruled that the term “dependent child” referred to a status of dependency imposed by law and thus decedent did not qualify as a dependent child.
REF: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 43 PLW 692, Tuesday, august 4, 2020, In re: Estate of Small, PICS No. 20-0820 (Pa, July 21, 2020) Saylor, J.
Kindly visit Estate Planning and Estate Litigation websites or contact one of our Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia, or Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.