PA Supreme Court Clarifies Child Support Rule for Third Parties

In Caldwell v. Jaurigue (2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a third party with partial physical custody—but without legal custody—cannot be compelled to pay child support.

This important decision offers clarity on the limits of financial responsibility for non-biological caregivers and third parties who act in loco parentis (in the place of a parent).

Case Summary: Caldwell v. Jaurigue

The facts of the case were as follows:

• The child’s biological parents were never married.

• During her pregnancy, the mother entered a relationship with the appellant, Jaurigue.

• After the mother’s death, the child went to live with the biological father.

• Jaurigue, who had lived with the mother and child and formed a close bond, sought and was granted partial physical custody based on his in loco parentis status.

• The biological father then filed to compel Jaurigue to pay child support.

• 
  

The Legal Question

Was Jaurigue, a non-parent with partial physical custody but no legal custody, financially responsible for supporting the child?

The Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said no.

The Court emphasized that:

• Emotional connection, caregiving, and even court-granted time with the child do not establish a financial support obligation.

• Legal custody, not just partial physical custody, is a key legal threshold for imposing child support.

• Acts of generosity or care—even if they mirror those of a parent—do not create a legal obligation unless the party assumes legal rights and responsibilities through the custody process.

This decision reversed a lower court ruling that had imposed child support based solely on Jaurigue’s physical custody and in loco parentis relationship.

Clarifying the Role of Legal Custody

While the Court clearly ruled that partial physical custody alone does not create a support obligation, it left the door open for future cases involving third parties with legal custody.

Here is what the ruling suggests:

• Legal custody may be a necessary condition for imposing child support on a third party—but it is not necessarily sufficient on its own.

• The obligation to pay support would still depend on the facts of the case, the scope of legal custody, and whether the third party has assumed substantial parental responsibilities.

• The Court reaffirmed that legal obligations flow from legal authority, not just emotional involvement.

So while this case did not impose a rule that any legal custodian must pay support, it makes clear that without legal custody, no support obligation exists—even if a close relationship is present.

Implications for Caregivers and Custody Participants

This ruling provides reassurance to stepparents, grandparents, and others who step in to support children emotionally or practically: kindness and involvement do not automatically create legal financial duties.

At the same time, anyone seeking legal custody—especially long-term or shared legal decision-making authority—should be aware that this may carry both rights and responsibilities, including the potential for child support obligations depending on the circumstances.

Conclusion

Caldwell v. Jaurigue confirms that in Pennsylvania, third parties who take on partial physical custody do not assume financial responsibility unless they also obtain legal custody. It reinforces the principle that legal obligations stem from legal rights, not just good intentions or emotional bonds.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney/client relationship.

Ludwig, Everett & Tomb, PLLC represents clients throughout Indiana County and Western Pennsylvania in custody, support, and family law matters. If you have questions about your rights or obligations, contact us today.