L.A.S.G v. A.M.B. ( 2016 )

J-S63030-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
L.A.S.G., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
A.M.B.,
Appellee No. 795 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 10, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 0-C-0913919
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2016
L.A.S.G. (“Caretaker”), who is a third-party caretaker of Z.K.M.
(“Child”) (born in November of 2008), appeals from the order entered March
10, 2016, that denied the petition to modify custody filed by Caretaker on
April 23, 2015, and found Caretaker in civil contempt for failing to comply
with a direct order of court. Order, 3/10/16, at 1. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion, the trial court requests that we quash the appeal as it was taken
from an interlocutory order. Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 8. The trial
court states that it did not enter a final order in the underlying custody
action and that it intended to hold a full hearing on whether it is in the best
interests of Child for Caretaker to continue to have partial physical custody.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63030-16
Id. Indeed, the March 10, 2016 order scheduled a hearing for May 17,
2016, on this matter.
In G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996), we stated that, in
reviewing a custody order for finality, we consider not only the language of
the particular order, but also the point in the proceedings at which the order
is entered and the intended effect of the order upon further proceedings
between the parties. Id. at 718. Citing G.B., the trial court reiterated that
it had intended to hold a hearing to receive additional testimony and
evidence pertaining to the merits of the outstanding custody petitions. Trial
Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 8-9. The trial court explained that the testimony
from the therapist involved in the reunification of Child with her mother is
crucial to the merits of the claims before it, and that testimony is not yet in
the record. Id. Thus, we agree that the March 10, 2016 order was not final
and appealable regarding issues of custody.
Further, while the appealed order found Caretaker in civil contempt, it
did not impose sanctions. In fact, the order canceled the contempt hearing
previously scheduled and indicated that the consolidated matter was relisted
for consideration at the May 17, 2016 hearing. Thus, the order is not
appealable on this basis. See Genovese v. Genovese, 550 A.2d 1021,
1022 (Pa. Super. 1988) (“unless sanctions are imposed, an order declaring a
party in contempt is interlocutory.”); Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148, 151
(Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (“for a contempt order to be properly
appealable, it is only necessary that the order impose sanctions on the
-2-
J-S63030-16
alleged contemnor, and no further court order be required before the
sanctions take effect.”).
Accordingly, we quash the appeal and remand the matter to the trial
court for further proceedings.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/25/2016
-3-