L.L.L. v. S.T.L. ( 2017 )

J-S01009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
L.L.L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
:
v. :
:
:
S.T.L. :
:
Appellant : No. 1411 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Civil Division at No(s): 2007-FC-40839
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2017
Appellant, S.T.L. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the emergency
petition for contempt filed by Appellee, L.L.L. (“Mother”), for Father’s failure
to comply with a prior custody order concerning T.L. (“Child”). We affirm.
The trial court fully and comprehensively sets forth the relevant facts
and procedural history. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT LACK JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
ITS ORDER AS…CHILD REACHED THE AGE OF THE
MAJORITY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT?
DID THE TRIAL COURT LACK JURISDICTION OVER THE
J-S01009-17
PARTIES AS THERE WAS NO MINOR CHILD BETWEEN
THEM AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT?
WAS THERE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
TRIAL TO ESTABLISH [FATHER] WAS IN CONTEMPT, AS
[MOTHER] FAILED TO ENTER ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF THE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT?
WAS IT AN ERROR TO FIND [FATHER] IN CONTEMPT AS
THE UNDERLYING ORDER WAS VOIDED PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION?
(Father’s Brief at 6).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Trish
Corbett, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. (See Trial Court
Opinion, filed September 15, 2016, at 4-8) (finding: (1-2, 4) when court
issued May 20, 2016 custody order, court was aware that Child would turn
18 years old on day after that order required Father to return Child to
Mother’s custody; court had authority and jurisdiction to find Father in
contempt for violating May 20, 2016 custody order, even though as soon as
Child reached age of 18, (a) court lacked jurisdiction to enter further custody
orders regarding Child; and (b) previous custody orders concerning Child
became null and void; (3) at contempt hearing, Child testified he told Father
that he did not want to return to Mother, and Father replied he would not
force Child to go; Father did not try or direct Child to return to Mother’s
home; Father did not require Child to go with Mother when Mother arrived at
Father’s home to retrieve Child; Father told Child that once Child turned 18,
-2-
J-S01009-17
Child could decide where to live and attend school, pursuant to May 20,
2016 custody order; however, Father had obligation to return Child to
Mother’s custody on June 21, 2016; Father manipulated Child so Child would
not want to return to Mother’s custody; Father also influenced Child’s
testimony at contempt hearing; evidence presented at contempt hearing
was sufficient to establish Father willfully violated May 20, 2016 custody
order). The record supports the court’s decision. Thus, we affirm on the
basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2017
-3-
Circulated 12/29/2016 02:17 PM
L.L.L., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff :OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY
vs. CIVIL ACTION-LAW
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
S.T.L., No. 2007-FC-40839
Defendant
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OPINION
This Court issued an Order of Contempt against the Defendant, S.T.L., filed on July
21, 2016. On August 22, 2016, a Notice of Appeal was filed by the Defendant, and the
Opinion in support of that Order is now ripe andas such, is addressed below on this 151h day
·' j
of September, 2016.
CORBETT,J.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
This case involves a high conflict custody dispute over the parties' minor child, T.L.,
1
(hereinafter "minor child"). This file is replete with various
petitions filed by the parties since the action commenced on July 6, 2007, when Plaintiff,
L.L.L (hereinafter "Mother"), filed a Complaint in Divorce against Defendant, S.T.L.
(hereinafter "Father"). (Complaint 07/0/6/07). Pursuantto an Order dated February 15,
2013, the parties have shared legal custody of the minor child. (Order 02/15/13). Mother has
primary physical custody of the minor child and Father has partial physical custody every
Tuesday and Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and e~_~*f~illJtfle``-D.OitrnmFriday
• I Ii'~ l:1 :JO' ~ (Wtj' -1 "'
after school until Sunday at 9:00 p.m. (Order 05/13/16).
'·1'773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa. Super. 2001). A party who willfully fails to comply with
any custody order may be adjudged in contempt; which can be punishable by imprisonment
for a period not to exceed six (6) months, a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars
($500.00), probation for a period of not more than six (6) months, an order for renewal,
suspension or denial of operating pursuant to 2J·Pa.C.S.A. § 4355 and counsel fees and
costs. 23 Pa.C.S.A.§ 5323 (g)(l)(i)-(v) (West 2016). The complaining party has the burden,
by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that the opposing party violated the court order.
Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654, 656 (Pa.Super. 2008).
Each court is the exclusivejudge of contempt against its own process. Garr, 773
A.2d at 189. When reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellate court should
place great reliance upon the discretion of the trial judge. Id. On appeal from a court's order
holding a party in contempt, the appellate court is limited to determining whether the trial
court committed a clear abuse of discretion. Id.This Court finds Father was in willful contempt of its Order dated May 20, 2016 by
failing to return the minor child to Mother's custody on June 21, 2016. Also, it was very
apparent to this Court that Father manipulated tlie minor child into not wanting to return to
Mother's custody. During the contempt hearing..the minor child testified there was no
serious emergency preventing Father from returning the minor child to Mother's custody on
June 21, 2016. (H.T., 07/20/16, p. 35). Rather, the minor child testified that.he told his
Father that he did not want to go to his Mother's. house, so Father told him "he was not
going to force him to go." (H.T. 07/20/16, p. 8). ,.
4:
The minor child testified that Father did not discuss returning him to Mother until
after Mother started contacting the minor child that night. (H.T.07/20/16, p. 14). The minor
child indicated that his Mother started contacting him on June 21, 2016 around 8:44 p.m.
asking him when he would be coming home. (H.T. 07/20/16, p. 10). After the minor child
indicated to Mother that he was not coming home, she arrived at Father's residence to
retrieve the minor child around 10:30 p.m. (H.T/ 07/20/16, p. 11). The minor child stated
that Father did not require him to go home with Mother when she arrived. (H.T. 07/20/16, p.
17). This Court finds at no time did Father force the minor child to get into his car to return
to his Mother's residence nor did he force the minor child to go out to his Mother's car
when she arrived at Father's residence to retrieve him.
Furthermore, the minor child also testified that Father told him that once he reached
the age of eighteen (18) that he could make his own decision as to where to live and where
to go to school. (HT. 07/20/16, p. 25). Although this is true, it in no way effects the fact that
Father was under this Court's Order to return the minor child to Mother's custody on June
21, 2016 and was in contempt when he failed to do so. It is clear to this Court Father
manipulated the minor child to think ifhe did not want to return to Mother's custody, then
Father would not need to comply with this Court's Order. Father has allowed the minor
child to make the decision of whether he would comply with the Order. This is not
acceptable. The parties arethe persons who are to ensure compliance. Father had an
obligation to comply with this Court's Order and failed to make any attempt to ensure
compliance. Thus, this Court finds Father is in willful contempt of its Order dated ML\~ 2-0,
2016.
5
This Court also finds Father influenced theminor child into not only refusing to
return to Mother's custody, but that he also influenced the minor child's testimony at the
contempt hearing. During the contempt hearing, the minor child disclosed Father informed
him that Mother filed a Contempt Petition against Father for failure to return him to
Mother's custody on June 21, 2016 and that he could be incarcerated as a result. (H.T.
07 /20/16, p. 25- 7).
First, the minor child indicated that he did not review the Contempt Petition. (H.T.
07 /20/16, p. 26). Then, he stated that he did read the Contempt Petition, but did not
understand it. (H.T. 07/20/16, p. 27). He testified that his Father did not discuss what was
required to find a party in contempt, but rather, prior to June 21, 2016, he learned from the
television show Law and Order that a person could not be held in contempt if he or she did
not willfully violate an order. (H.T. 07/20/16, p. JO). However, the minor child then testified
that the first time he heard the word "willfully" was during that hearing. (H.T. 07/20/16, p.
34). Once again, the minor child changed his testimony by testifying that the first time he.
understood Father could go to jail if he willfully violated this Court's Order was when he
reviewed the Contempt Petition. (H.T. 07/20/16;:p. 31).
Clearly, in order to avoid being held in contempt, Father informed the minor child
that Father's actions must be willful, and thus, if the minor child refused to go then his
actions would not be considered willful. (H.T. 07/20/16, p. 30). As stated above, Father
placed all the responsibility to comply with this Court's Order on the minor child when it
was Father's obligation to do so. (H.T. 07/20/16( pf: 31).
Therefore, this Court finds that Father was in willful contempt of its Order dated
May 20, 2016 by failing to return the minor child to Mother's custody on June 21, 2016.
6
Unfortunately, Father has manipulated the minor child in an attempt to "win" against
Mother, something he has been trying to do since 2007, but at this time it was at the cost of
the minor child's present and future education. ·
III. MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Father's counsel filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1925(2)(a) on August 22, 2016, which are listed below and
addressed in tum.
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS IN CONTEMPT AS IT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE
MATTER.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS IN CONTEMPT AS IT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTIES.
Father's first ( 181) and second (2nd) S``tement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal shall be addressed together. This Courtdid not err in finding that Father was in
contempt as it had jurisdiction over the matter and the parties. Although this Court
lacked jurisdiction to enter an order of custody, this Court still had jurisdiction to
enforce its prior order and the authority to hold· a party in contempt for failure to abide
by its order.
The Superior Court has held that a trial court could properly hold a party in
contempt even though it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to modify an
underlying custody order. Shaw v. Shaw, 719 A.2d 359,360 (Pa.Super. 1998). "There is
a great difference between modification jurisdiction, which involves holding an
evidentiary hearing on the best interests of the child in order to determine custody, and
enforcement jurisdiction, which is limited to determining whether the prior custody
7
order can be enforced." Id, citing, Common ex rel. Taylor v. Taylor, 480 A.2d 1188,
1190 (Pa.Super. 1984).
This Court was well aware of the fact the minor child was turning eighteen (18)
years of age on June 22, 2016 when it issued the Order requiring the minor child to be
return to his Mother's custody on June 21, 2016. Although this Court no longer
possessed the jurisdiction to enter an order of custody for the minor child once he
reached the age of eighteen (18), that does not preclude this Court from finding Father in
contempt for violating its Order dated May 20, 2016 for failure to return the minor child
to Mother's custody on June 21, 2016.
3. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL
TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTEMPT.
As discussed above, there was sufficient evidence presented during the contempt
hearing to establish that Father willfully violated this Court's Order dated May 20, 2016
by failing to return the minor child to Mother's custody on June 21, 2016.
4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING CONTEMPT ON JULY
21, 2016, BASED ON THE MAYfao, 2016 ORDER, AS THE
UNDERLYING ORDER WAS VOIDED ON JUNE 22, 2016.
This Court did not err in issuing an Order dated July 21, 2016 finding Father in
contempt for violating the Order dated May 20, 2016. Although the previous custody
orders regarding the custody of the minor child became null and void by law upon the
minor child reaching the age of majority on June 22, 2016, as discussed above, this
Court still has the jurisdiction to find Father in contempt for violating the Order on June
21, 2016 when it was in full force and effect.
8
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Mother's Emergency Petition for Contempt and
Sanctions is GRANTED and Mother's request for attorney's fees in the amount of one
thousand seven hundred seventy dollars ($1,770.00) is GRANTED.
9·
cc: Written notice of the entry of the foregoing Opinion has been provided to each party
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236 (a) (2) by mailing time stamped copies to:
Attorney for Plaintiff
Brian J. Cali, Esq.
Brian J. Cali & Associates
103 East Drinker St.
Dunmore, PA 18512
Attorney for Defendant
Michael A. Shotto, Jr.,Esquire
Junker Shotto, LLC
297 Pierce Street
Kingston, PA 18704
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jennifer Traxler, Esquire
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
PO Box 62435
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1600
Harrisburg, PA 17106-24 3 5
10