M.A.C. v. P.K.B. ( 2015 )

J-A32030-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.A.C., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
P.K.B.,
Appellee No. 1612 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order dated April 24, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Civil Division, at No(s): 2010-FC-0347
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.; FILED JANUARY 20, 2015
M.A.C. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered April 24, 2014, that
held him in contempt of the custody order dated April 17, 2012, and
awarded P.K.B. (“Mother”) sole legal custody of the parties’ child, X.K.C.
(“Child”). We vacate and remand.
Prior to these contempt proceedings, Father and Mother had joint legal
custody of Child. On January 14, 2014, Mother filed a petition for contempt.
Mother did not request sole legal custody of Child as a sanction for Father’s
contempt. The trial court did not notify Father that it could alter the
custodial arraignment if it found him in contempt. On April 24, 2014, the
trial court granted the contempt petition and awarded Mother sole legal
custody of Child. This timely appeal followed. Father and the trial court
complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A32030-14
Father contends that his right to due process was violated when the
trial court failed to provide notice that it may alter the parties’ custodial
arrangement if it found him in contempt. We review a trial court’s finding of
contempt, and sanctions it imposes, for an abuse of discretion. See G.A. v.
D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
In Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303, 308-309 (Pa. Super.
2002), this Court held that the trial court violated the father’s due process
rights in modifying legal custody of a child where the contempt petition did
not seek a change in the parties’ custodial arrangement and there was no
prehearing notice that the issue of custody would be considered at the
contempt hearing. As noted by the trial court in the case sub judice,
Mother’s contempt petition made no request for a change in custody, and no
prehearing notice regarding custody was provided. Trial Court Opinion,
6/30/14, at 3. The trial court concedes that, in the absence of prehearing
notice that custody could be altered if it found Father in contempt, it erred
by awarding Mother sole legal custody. Id. We agree. Pursuant to
Langendorfer and Choplosky v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super.
1990), which the trial court relied upon in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial
court erred by awarding Mother sole legal custody without providing Father
appropriate notice. We therefore vacate the April 24, 2014 order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this judgment order.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2 -
J-A32030-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/20/2015
-3 -