The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a child support order in the case of Herrmann v. Herrmann, docket number 256 MDA 2026. The court ruled in favor of Kelly Nicole Herrmann, establishing her entitlement to child support from Jeremy Jon Herrmann. This decision is significant as it addresses complex issues surrounding jurisdiction and the rights of parents in child support cases.
The case began when Jeremy Herrmann appealed a January 6, 2026 order from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. The order dismissed his exceptions to a child support report that favored Kelly Herrmann and made an interim support order final. This ruling affects the couple's two minor children, J.H. and K.H., born in 2015 and 2020, respectively. The outcome is important not only for the Herrmann family but also for similar cases involving interstate custody and support disputes.
Kelly and Jeremy Herrmann were married in 2007 and initially lived in Pennsylvania before moving to Reno, Nevada. After their separation in November 2021, following an incident of domestic violence, Kelly returned to California with the children. She later filed for divorce and obtained sole custody of the children in Nevada. In July 2023, Kelly moved the children to Pennsylvania without court permission and registered the Nevada custody order there, leading to a modified custody order in Pennsylvania.
Jeremy Herrmann has since contested Kelly's move and the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts to address child support. His arguments have been dismissed in previous rulings, including a Nevada appellate decision that relinquished custody jurisdiction to Pennsylvania. The current appeal stems from Jeremy's dissatisfaction with the child support order issued by the Pennsylvania court.
The Superior Court, led by Judge Bowes, upheld the trial court's decision, stating, "The duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child’s best interests." The court found that Jeremy's claims regarding jurisdiction were unfounded, noting that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) operate under different legal frameworks. The court emphasized that even if Nevada retained custody jurisdiction, it did not affect Pennsylvania's authority to issue a child support order.
Jeremy's appeal was characterized as frivolous by the court, which stated that he failed to adequately support his claims with legal authority. The court highlighted that Jeremy had waived any contest to Pennsylvania's jurisdiction by participating in the support proceedings without raising an objection. The court also noted that the support and custody matters were separate legal issues, allowing Pennsylvania to proceed with the support case despite the ongoing custody appeal.
The ruling has significant implications for future child support cases, particularly those involving parents in different states. It reinforces the principle that child support obligations are independent of custody disputes and that courts can exercise jurisdiction over support matters even when custody issues are contested. This decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases where parents move across state lines and dispute support obligations.
Looking ahead, Jeremy Herrmann has the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, but the chances of success appear limited given the court's clear rationale and the dismissal of his previous claims. The court has also granted Kelly's request for costs associated with this appeal, indicating that Jeremy's actions may have been unnecessarily burdensome.
In conclusion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's ruling in Herrmann v. Herrmann underscores the complexities of child support and custody law, particularly in cases involving interstate jurisdiction. The decision not only affirms Kelly Herrmann's right to child support but also clarifies the legal standards that govern such disputes.