.2608110913226.png)
In family law, especially support cases, the difference between an average result and a strong result often comes down to preparation and persistence. A recent Northumberland County support matter illustrates this point clearly.
Our client, the mother of a teenage daughter, had initially received only $631 per month in alimony pendente lite (APL) from a Domestic Relations conference, with no child support awarded. After a full de novo hearing before the Court, that figure more than doubled. The final order entered on July 30, 2026 requires the father to pay $1,433 per month in current support ($1,382 APL plus $51 child support), plus $100 per month toward arrears that were fixed at $25,050.93. The order is effective back to the December 17, 2024, filing date.
One of the most important factors in achieving this result was our use of discovery to obtain the father’s rental application. In that document, he listed monthly income of $6,000 — on top of his Social Security Disability and disability pension. At the hearing, the father claimed he earned nothing from his immigration-related work and was merely a volunteer. The Court rejected that testimony as not credible.
The rental application became powerful evidence. Combined with other documents we obtained — including text messages discussing commissions, public references to the father as “Executive Director,” and press accounts in which he was described as an immigration attorney — the Court found that the father had the ability to earn far more than he admitted. The Court expressly imputed a $6,000 per month earning capacity based on the figure he himself had claimed on the application.
This case is a reminder that support litigation is often won or lost on the quality of the evidence presented. When a party understates income or claims to work only as a volunteer, contemporaneous documents created for other purposes (loan applications, rental applications, emails, texts, and public statements) can be decisive. Taking the time to pursue discovery thoroughly gave the Court a clear basis to reject the father’s version of events and to enter an order that more accurately reflected his true earning ability.
The result was a material improvement for our client and her daughter — higher monthly support, a substantial arrears balance, and a court record that makes future underreporting of income more difficult.
At Scaringi Law, we treat discovery as a core part of effective advocacy in support cases. When the other party’s claimed income does not match the documentary record, we dig until the full picture emerges. That approach made the difference here.
If you would like a consultation on a family law matter do not hesitate to contact Scaringi Law and ask for Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. at 717-657-7770.