Supreme Court Rules that Support of $100 a Month for a Child Can’t Be Enforced
That is an extreme title to an essay in 2026 when the median cost to raise a child in America is $ 1500 to $ 2000 a month depending on whose study you credit. But, the March 26 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appears to hold that a parent who professes he can’t find work gets to skate unless the trial judge finds the money “on him” in the context of a support proceeding.
Bredbenner v. Hall has been floating around for a while. This couple had three children between 2004 and 2013. In 2015 Mr. Hall was directed to pay $ 300 a month to support three children. That was after a downward deviation from the guideline amount because he already had another child born in 2000. In 2016 the court lowered the support to $ 100 a month. In 2021 there was a claim of workers compensation, In 2022 the claim was dismissed because Mr. Hall quit his job. The beat went on with Mr. Hall professing he was looking for new employment and Ms. Bredbenner filing a succession of contempt petitions for failure to pay what seems $ 109,00 a month for three children. The testimony in November 2022 was that Mr. Hall had a job; insisted he needed a smoking break and left work when told his employment did not allow smoking breaks. Note that in Pennsylvania, a pack of cigarettes averages $ 8. Mr. Hall’s child support for three children was equivalent to 10 cigarettes per day. In December 2022 the Court found that father had made no payment in a year, had presented no current evidence of inability to pay and had wilfully refused to pay support. Defendant was found in contempt. He was remanded to the local jail for 100 days subject to release if he paid $ 2,000. Father appealed noting that there was no proof he had $ 2,000 when sentenced.
The Superior Court reversed the holding reliant upon a 1977 Supreme Court case, Barrett v. Barrett, 368 A.2d 616. That case holds that where incarceration is ordered on conditions, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that defendant can pay the required amount.
This case boils down to ”Who has the burden?” Obligor says the obligee must show he had the present ability to meet the purge condition of $ 2,000. Obligee says the burden should run the other way. Father should show he can’t produce the purge amount.
The Supreme Court affirms Barrett. But in so doing it misses the point of support contempt. First, this is a challenging topic in an academic sense. Short of producing bank accounts and disrobing before the bar of the court, an obligor can’t meet the standard. And how is a person due support and not getting it supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the obligor really has the money set as the purge amount. Contempt proceedings don’t allow for discovery of account transactions before the hearing. These hearings are largely exercises in futility.
As happens too often this opinion is bereft of relevant facts. We know that the obligor quit his job as an “inspector” of some kind. He professed to be supported by a family member. There are no facts about the wages that yielded a worker’s compensation claim. We can see that in 2026 Lebanon County has a 3.2% unemployment rate. We see a history of unemployment and disability but we also see a history of quitting jobs for ridiculous reasons. You have minor children and support obligations but you quit because of your employer’s smoking policy? “Sorry, Ms. Bredbenner. You have received no support in a year, but a man has a right to smoke on the job. You and your children need to be clear about that.”
Perhaps even more outrageous is the recitation of things the court could insist on to gently promote work and supporting your kids. The defendant could be made to meet with vocational placement personnel. The instant question becomes: “Can he smoke during these meetings or suspend them in order to address his habit?” If he can quit jobs where his smoking needs are not addressed, can he smoke in court or ask for a recess to meet that need?”
We love to wax about the importance of child support. Yet, this opinion suggests that $ 2 a day to support two children is a subject for which the obligee needed to do more to prove that a parent who spends 3x that for a pack of cigs has the ability to lay out the $ 2 to support his kids. Yes, we are a country founded in part on the principle that people should not be jailed for debt. But our founders did not hesitate to imprison parents who refused to pay support for children they created. Let’s recall as well that when an obligor’s “liberty” is threatened he gets attorney representation at the cost of the county. The obligee typically has assistance as well through the Domestic Relations Office but that is not an entitlement and yet she has the burden of producing evidence that the obligor can pay.
When the highest court in an industrialized state signals that it can’t enforce an order of $ 100 a month for two children, there is little hope to reverse declining trends in childbirth and reason to expect male labor force participation rates to continue their decline. Lending Tree just reported that the average cost to raise a kid in Pennsylvania is $ 2,000 a month. It Costs $ 303,418 to Raise a Child Over 18 Years | LendingTree
Much as with Mr. Hall, the existing law is not working. The Supreme Court needs to revise contempt penalties to include public service. Faced with choices like picking up litter for free or finding gainful employment, we suspect that incentives will arise that put people back to work in a full employment economy.
The majority opinion is here. Bredbenner v. Hall; Apl of: Lebanon Co Dom Rel :: 2026 :: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decisions :: Pennsylvania Case Law :: Pennsylvania Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
There are many other opinions, all reflecting discomfort with the outcome of the case. That itself should signal a need to discuss meaningful support enforcement mechanisms. We can all agree that jail is a poor remedy. But Ms. Bredbenner departs from years of litigation with n remedy.