When parents live in different states or move with their children across state lines, disputes over custody and child support can become complicated. A recent non-precedential decision from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Herrmann v. Herrmann, No. 256 MDA 2026 (filed October 22, 2026), addresses an important question: Can a Pennsylvania court order child support while the parents are disputing which state has jurisdiction over custody?
The decision highlights a key distinction in Pennsylvania family law: custody jurisdiction and child support jurisdiction are governed by separate legal frameworks. A dispute over which state should decide custody does not automatically prevent a Pennsylvania court from establishing a child support obligation.
Understanding the Background in Herrmann v. Herrmann
Kelly and Jeremy Herrmann married in Pennsylvania before living in California and later Reno, Nevada. The parties separated in 2021 following an incident of domestic violence, and the mother eventually obtained sole custody of the children in Nevada before the parties divorced.
In 2023, the mother moved to Pennsylvania with the children without obtaining prior court permission. She registered the Nevada custody order and later obtained a modified Pennsylvania custody order granting her sole legal and primary physical custody.
The father repeatedly challenged Pennsylvania's authority to decide custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Nevada courts subsequently determined that Nevada no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody and relinquished jurisdiction to Pennsylvania.
A prior Pennsylvania appellate decision affirmed the custody order and rejected the father's jurisdictional arguments.
The later appeal involved a separate child support proceeding. After the trial court dismissed the father's exceptions and finalized the support order, he appealed again, raising many of the same jurisdictional objections.
How the Superior Court Ruled
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the child support order, emphasizing several principles relevant to interstate family law disputes.
1. Parents Have a Duty to Support Their Children
Pennsylvania recognizes the duty to support minor children as a fundamental parental obligation. Child support is intended to address children's financial needs and promote their best interests.
A dispute about custody jurisdiction does not automatically eliminate that obligation. When a Pennsylvania court has the necessary authority to establish support, jurisdictional disagreements in a separate custody proceeding do not necessarily prevent the court from entering a support order.
2. Custody and Child Support Follow Different Legal Rules
The UCCJEA governs jurisdictional questions involving child custody, while the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) governs interstate child support matters.
Although these laws can apply to the same family, they address different legal questions. A determination about which state should decide custody does not automatically resolve which state can establish or enforce child support.
In Herrmann, the court rejected the argument that the custody-jurisdiction dispute prevented Pennsylvania from maintaining the separate support proceeding.
For parents navigating similar circumstances, understanding the distinction between these legal frameworks can be essential when determining the appropriate next steps.
3. Jurisdictional Objections Must Be Raised Promptly
The court also considered the father's participation in the Pennsylvania support proceedings without promptly objecting to jurisdiction.
The decision underscores the importance of raising appropriate jurisdictional objections at the correct stage of a case. Depending on the circumstances, participating in proceedings without timely challenging personal jurisdiction may result in a waiver of that objection.
Parents facing interstate support proceedings should understand their procedural rights before taking steps that could affect their ability to challenge the court's authority.
4. Previously Rejected Arguments May Not Succeed in Later Appeals
The father also repeated arguments that had already been rejected in the related custody appeal. Those arguments did not provide a sufficient basis for overturning the support order.
The court affirmed the order with a limited remand, meaning the support obligation remained upheld while a narrower issue was returned to the trial court for further attention.
The outcome illustrates why it is important to identify the specific legal issues involved in each proceeding rather than assuming that an argument raised in a custody case will automatically resolve a separate child support dispute.
What Does Herrmann v. Herrmann Mean for Parents?
The decision offers several practical lessons for parents involved in interstate custody and support disputes.
Custody and support jurisdiction are separate issues. A parent challenging Pennsylvania's authority over custody cannot automatically use that dispute to prevent a properly established child support proceeding.
Raise jurisdictional objections early. Participating in a support case without timely raising an applicable objection may affect the ability to challenge jurisdiction later.
Prior court decisions matter. Earlier rulings concerning which state has continuing custody jurisdiction can influence subsequent proceedings involving the same family.
Children's financial needs remain important. Disagreements about custody jurisdiction do not, by themselves, eliminate a parent's duty to provide support when a court has the authority to enter an order.
Interstate cases require careful legal analysis. The children's residence, existing court orders, the history of prior proceedings, and the timing of jurisdictional objections can all affect the outcome.
Understanding Child Support in Interstate Family Law Cases
Herrmann v. Herrmann demonstrates why interstate family law matters can require separate consideration of custody and child support jurisdiction.
Even when parents are involved in a dispute over which state should make custody decisions, a Pennsylvania court may still have authority to establish child support under the applicable laws. The outcome depends on the specific jurisdictional requirements, existing orders, and procedural history of the case.
If you are dealing with a child support dispute involving multiple states, understanding your legal obligations and available options can help you make informed decisions about your family's future.
Get Guidance From Scaringi Law
Interstate custody and child support disputes can involve overlapping court orders, competing jurisdictional arguments, and important procedural deadlines. Having an experienced Pennsylvania family law attorney can help you understand how the applicable laws affect your situation.
Contact Scaringi Law today to discuss your child support or interstate family law matter. Visit our Child Support page to learn more about our services, or call 717-657-7770 to discuss your circumstances and schedule a consultation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and applicable law. Consult a licensed Pennsylvania attorney about your individual circumstances.