L.S. v. A.V.S. ( 2016 )

J-A12001-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
L.S., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
A.V.S.,
Appellant No. 3213 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order September 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): 0C0174676
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016
A.V.S. (Mother) appeals pro se from the September 21, 2015 order
that, after a hearing, suspended her “supervised physical custody
(visitation)” of C.S.S. (Child), born in September of 2001, “until further
order of the court.” Order, 9/21/15, at 1. Because we determine that the
order appealed from is interlocutory, and not final, we quash this appeal.
The almost non-existent certified record in this case appears to show
that Mother has been seeking custody of Child since March of 2006. The
certified record only contains the list of docket entries, the September 21,
2015 order from which this appeal stems, and the trial court’s memorandum
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12001-16
in lieu of an opinion, dated November 3, 2015, which states in its entirety
that:
The September 21, 2015[, o]rder that Appellant [Mother]
seeks to appeal cannot be appealed because it is an interim
order. It is not a permanent order because the court has
indicated that [Mother’s] custody is suspended until further order
of the court. Furthermore, in [Mother’s] [s]tatement of [e]rrors,
[Mother] failed to present this court with an articulable clear and
concise statement of matters filed on appeal.
Trial Court’s Memorandum in Lieu of Opinion, 11/3/15.
When confronted with an order that does not appear to be final, this
Court is guided by the following excerpt from Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d
1023 (Pa. Super. 2002), that states:
Generally, “a custody order will be considered final and
appealable only after the trial court has completed its hearings
on the merits and the resultant order resolves the pending
custody claims between the parties.” G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa.
Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714, 715 (Pa. Super. 1996) (quashing
appeal as interlocutory where order allowing father partial
custody pending completion of hearings contemplated additional
hearing on ultimate issues in the case). In the context of finality
of orders, we recognize the uniqueness of custody orders
compared to orders in other civil actions. Id. 670 at 718 n.9.
Child custody orders are temporary in nature and
always subject to change if new circumstances affect
the welfare of a child. The Commonwealth has a
duty of paramount importance, to protect the child's
best interests and welfare. To that end, it may
always entertain an application for modification and
adjustment of custodial rights.
Id. (citations omitted).
Id. at 1025.
-2-
J-A12001-16
Subsequent to this statement by the Kassam Court, the Kassam
opinion sets forth an extensive discussion contained in the G.B. decision,
which reviews a number of previously decided cases, and concludes that “a
custody order will be considered final and appealable only if it is both: 1)
entered after the court has completed its hearings on the merits; and 2)
intended by the court to constitute a complete resolution of the custody
claims pending between the parties.” Kassam, 811 A.2d at 1027 (quoting
G.B., 670 A.2d at 721 (emphasis omitted)).
Here, it is evident from the court’s statement in its memorandum
opinion that it did not intend the September 21, 2015 order to be a final
order that disposes of all claims and of all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341. More
importantly, the language of the order contemplates the court’s expectation
that additional proceedings will occur. Therefore, the custody order at issue
does not meet the second prong of the test expressed in Kassam.
Accordingly, we are compelled to quash this appeal as interlocutory.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/9/2016
-3-