J-A26021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHAD BATTERMAN 

Appellant

v.

SILVIA SANTO

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 739 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 9, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2019-06877

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2022

Appellant, Chad Batterman (“Father”), appeals from the order entered 

in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on March 9, 2022, which 

granted in part Father’s petition to modify custody in part and denied all other 

relief, and which found Father in contempt of the court’s prior custody orders. 

We affirm.

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case 

as follows:

The instant appeal marks the continuation of a highly 

litigated custody case. The majority of the litigation has 

resulted from “emergency” and contempt petitions filed by 

Father (who has filed over 85 petitions since the case was 

transferred from Philadelphia in April, 2019). 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A26021-22

- 2 -

On July 16, 2021, after a five-day custody trial spanning 

several months, the [trial court] issued a detailed and 

expansive custody order (the “July 16, 2021 Order”) 

granting Mother sole legal custody and primary physical 

custody of the minor children C.B.[, born October 2015,] 

and D.B.[, born October 2017,] (hereinafter the “Children”) 

subject to Father’s periods of partial custody.

On October 27, 2021, after another protracted hearing, the 

[trial court] granted Mother seven make-up days (chosen 

pursuant to a set regimen) (the “October 27, 2021 Order”) 

because of Father’s withholding of the Children contrary to 

the July 16, 2021 Order and without Mother’s consent.

Over the next five months, Father filed the following 

petitions requesting various relief, some of which 

“amended” previously filed petitions:

• 11/04/21 Emergency Petition to Revise the Holiday 

Schedule in the July 16, 2021 Order (Seq. #336);

• 12/21/21 Amended Emergency Petition for Civil 

Contempt for Disobedience of the July 16, 2021 

and October 27, 2021 Orders (Seq. #365);

• 12/28/21 Emergency Motion Requesting Full Time 

Enrollment of Parties’ Son in Pre-School (Seq. 

#376);

• 01/10/22 Emergency Motion Requesting Mother Be 

Ordered to Allow Access to the Parties’ Children 

During Her Custodial Time for the Children to 

Attend Their Scheduled Extra Curricular Activities 

(Seq. #381);

• 02/22/22 Emergency Motion Requesting Mother Be 

Ordered to Have the Parties’ Children Wear Face 

Masks in Compliance with the July 16, 2021 Order 

and Enforcement of the Order Mother is Willfully 

Disobeying (Seq. #397);

• 02/25/22 Amended Motion Requesting Full Time 

Enrollment of Parties’ Son in Pre-School (Seq. 

#402);
J-A26021-22

- 3 -

• 02/25/22 Amended Motion to Revise the Holiday 

Schedule in the July 16, 2021 Order (Seq. #403);

• 02/25/22 Amended Motion Requesting Mother Be 

Ordered to Allow Access to the Parties’ Children 

During Her Custodial Time for the Children to 

Attend Their Scheduled Extra Curricular Activities 

(Seq. #404); and

• 03/01/22 Second Amended Petition for Civil 

Contempt for Disobedience of the July 16, 2021 

and October 27, 2021 Orders (Seq. #405).

Each of Father’s petitions filed as “Emergency Petitions” 

were deemed not to be emergencies and were consolidated 

with previously scheduled petitions.

On January 28, 2022, Mother filed an Emergency Petition 

for Special Relief, alleging that Father, without Mother’s 

consent or a court order, took the parties’ minor daughter 

to receive her first COVID vaccine and seeking an order 

stopping Father from taking their daughter to receive her 

second COVID vaccine. That same day, th[e trial c]ourt 

deemed that petition to not be an emergency but ordered 

that both parties “strictly comply with the July 16, 2021 

Custody Order” and reminding that “Mother has sole legal 

custody” and “makes final medical decisions regarding the 

children except in the case of an emergency—which this is 

not” (the “January 28, 2022 Order”).

Notwithstanding the January 28, 2022 Order, on or about 

February 1, 2022, Father took his daughter to receive a 

second COVID vaccine shot without Mother’s consent. On 

February 22, 2022, Mother filed a Petition for Contempt, 

requesting th[e trial c]ourt find Father in contempt of the 

July 16, 202[1] Order and the January 28, 2022 Order for 

the vaccine issue as well as for filing additional frivolous 

petitions in contravention of several court orders.

On March 2, 2022, the parties appeared for a hearing before 

th[e trial c]ourt to address all then-outstanding matters. On 

March 9, 2022, th[e trial c]ourt issued an order: (1) granting 

Father’s request for additional holiday time by extending his 

Hanukkah custodial period by one day, (2) finding Father in 
J-A26021-22

- 4 -

contempt of the July 16, 2021 and January 28, 2022 Orders, 

(3) sanctioning Father with a purge-condition fine of $500 

payable to Montgomery County Child Advocacy Project 

(“MCAP”) or, if Father failed to pay the fine, 72 hours of 

incarceration, and (4) denying all other relief (“the March 9, 

2022 Order”).

Father filed an Emergency Request for Stay of March 9, 

2022 Order, requesting, inter alia, that if the petition for 

stay was denied, he be assigned a payment plan for the 

$500 sanction. On March 21, 2022, th[e trial c]ourt deemed 

the petition to not be an emergency, but did permit Father 

to pay his sanction over the course of four months in 

monthly installments of $125.00 (the “March 21, 2022 

Order”).

(Trial Court Opinion, 5/24/22, at 1-4).

Father filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal on March 22, 2022.

1

 

Father now raises the following issues for this Court’s review: 

Did the Trial Court error as a matter of law as outlined below 

____________________________________________

1 On March 23, 2022, while Father’s appeal was pending before this Court, he 

filed an application for supersedeas, which sought a stay of the trial court’s 

orders, and he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court 

denied the application for supersedeas per curiam on March 23, 2022, and we 

denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis on March 25, 2022. 

On April 4, 2022, Father filed an application for reconsideration of the in forma 

pauperis determination and for reconsideration of the denial of his application 

for supersedeas. On April 28, 2022, this Court denied his applications for 

reconsideration as they were not filed within the seven-day period during 

which an appellant may seek reconsideration.

After that date, Father presented multiple applications for emergency relief 

related to production of transcripts and other exhibits. Following this Court’s 

denial of those motions, Father filed applications for reconsideration, which 

were also denied. 
J-A26021-22

- 5 -

in the arguments section.

(Father’s Brief at 1).

For the ease of the reader, we reproduce those headings from the 

argument section in which Father sets forth his questions presented.2

1. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by denying all 

but one request of [Father’s] Emergency Petition to Revise 

the Holiday Schedule (Seq. #336).

2. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by failing to find 

[Mother] in Contempt of the July 16, 2021 and October 27, 

2021 Orders (Seq. #365).

3. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by failing to find 

[Mother] in Contempt of the July 16, 2021 and October 27, 

2021 Orders (Seq. #405).

4. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by denying 

[Father’s] Emergency Petition Requesting Full Time 

Enrollment of Parties’ Son in Pre-School (Seq. #376). 

5. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by denying 

[Father’s] Emergency Petition Requesting Mother Be 

Ordered to Allow Access to the Parties’ Children During Her

Custodial Time for the Children to Attend Their Scheduled 

Extra Curricular Activities (Seq. #381). 

6. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by denying 

[Father’s] Emergency Petition Requesting Mother Be 

Ordered to Have the Parties’ Children Wear Face Masks in

Compliance with the July 16, 2021 Order and Enforcement 

of the Order Mother is Willfully Disobeying (Seq. #397). 

____________________________________________

2 Father’s failure to list all issues in his statement of questions presented does 

not comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure, which require that “[t]he 

statement of the questions involved must state concisely the issues to be 

resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without 

unnecessary detail. ... No question will be considered unless it is stated in 

the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 

2116(a).
J-A26021-22

- 6 -

7. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by 

modifying/amending/altering and/or clarifying the July 16, 

2021 Custody Order without prior notice. 

8. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by 

modifying/amending/altering and/or clarifying the July 16, 

2021 Custody Order at a Contempt hearing when there was 

no pending Petition to Modify Custody heard at the hearing.

9. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by hearing 

Mother’s Contempt Petition (seq. #401) at the March 2, 

2022 [hearing] without proper notice to Father. 

10. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by hearing 

Mother’s Contempt Petition (seq. #401) at the March 2, 

2022 hearing without following protocols per Montgomery 

County Court of Common Pleas.

11. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by finding 

[Father] in contempt.

12. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by imposing 

monetary sanctions on Father.

13. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by imposing 

mandatory jail time if monetary sanctions were not paid. 

14. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by not holding 

a hearing to review the reasonableness of the sanctions and 

Father’s ability to pay fine. 

15. The [trial court] erred as a matter of law by Ordering 

instant incarceration to follow of an individual with an 

inability to pay monetary sanctions.

(Father’s Brief at 2, 6, 14, 25, 29, 34, 45, 50, 55, 56, 57).

Our well-settled scope and standard of review are as follows:

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest 

type and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must 

accept findings of the trial court that are supported by 

competent evidence of record, as our role does not include 
J-A26021-22

- 7 -

making independent factual determinations. In addition, 

with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the 

evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who 

viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we 

are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences 

from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the 

trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the 

evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the 

trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are 

unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial 

court.

With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the 

best interests of the child. This standard requires a caseby-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately 

affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing of the child.

M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 334 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting J.R.M. v. 

J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa.Super. 2011)).

In addition, “[w]hen considering an appeal from an [o]rder holding a 

party in contempt for failure to comply with a court [o]rder, our scope of 

review is narrow: we will reverse only upon a showing the court abused its 

discretion.” Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2009) 

(quoting Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654, 655-56 (Pa.Super. 2008)).

Additionally, we must consider that:

Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its 

process. The contempt power is essential to the 

preservation of the court’s authority and prevents the 

administration of justice from failing into disrepute. When 

reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellate 

court must place great reliance upon the discretion of the 

trial judge.

Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630, 637 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting 
J-A26021-22

- 8 -

Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303, 307 (Pa.Super. 2002)). 

The general rule in proceedings for civil contempt is that “the burden of 

proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that the defendant is in noncompliance with a court order.” Id. 

(quoting Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 488 (Pa.Super. 2001)). 

To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must 

prove certain distinct elements: (1) that the contemnor had 

notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to 

have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the 

contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) that the 

contemnor acted with wrongful intent. 

Id. (quoting Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 486 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007)).

After finding a party in contempt for failure to comply with a custody 

order, the party may be punished by one or more of the following:

(i) Imprisonment for a period of not more than six months.

(ii) A fine of not more than $500.

(iii) Probation for a period of not more than six months.

(iv) An order for nonrenewal, suspension or denial of 

operating privilege under section 4355 (relating to denial or 

suspension of licenses).

(v) Counsel fees and costs.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g)(1)(i)-(v). “The purpose of civil contempt is to compel 

performance of lawful orders, and in some instances, to compensate the 

complainant for the loss sustained. When contempt is civil, a court must 

impose conditions on the sentence so as to permit the contemnor to purge 
J-A26021-22

- 9 -

himself.” Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal 

denied, 578 Pa. 709, 853 A.2d 362 (2004) (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted).

After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and 

the relevant law, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s 

determination. See M.J.M., supra; Harcar, supra. Consequently, we affirm 

the order denying Father’s petitions and finding Father in contempt for the 

reasons stated in the opinion that the Honorable Henry S. Hilles, III, entered 

on May 24, 2022.

Specifically, Judge Hilles noted that he did not err in amending the 

holiday schedule to balance holiday time between the parties. The court

explained that its order granted Father an additional night during Hanukkah 

but denied his other requests as they were made in bad faith. (See Trial Court 

Opinion at 7). Further, Judge Hilles observed that the court did not err in 

finding that Mother was not in contempt of the custody orders based on her 

suggestion that she receive make-up custodial time during the Hanukkah 

holiday because Mother had also suggested other make-up dates that did not 

infringe on either party’s holiday custodial periods. (Id. at 9-10).

Concerning Father’s claims that Mother was not enrolling the parties’ 

son in pre-school, Judge Hilles emphasized that Mother has sole legal custody 

and her choice of pre-school was appropriate. Further, Father did not 

introduce any credible evidence that Mother was excluding him from extra-
J-A26021-22

- 10 -

curricular activities, or that she failed to have Children masked in contradiction 

of a court order. (Id. at 11).

Judge Hilles noted that the July 16, 2021 custody order provides that 

“Mother shall have sole legal custody of the Children,” and “[t]he ultimate 

decision-making shall be up to Mother.” (Order, 7/16/21). Hence, the trial 

court was not modifying the custody order when it reiterated in its March 9, 

2022 order that Mother was sole legal custodian and had the “exclusive 

authority to make all final decisions relating to medical, psychological, 

therapeutic, dental and educational issues involving the children.” (Order, 

3/9/22). (See also Trial Court Opinion at 12-14). 

Judge Hilles explained that the court did not err when it heard all of 

Father’s outstanding petitions at the scheduled proceeding. The court advised 

the parties in advance that it intended to handle all then-pending petitions 

during the March 2, 2022 hearing, and it gave the parties ample opportunity 

to address each outstanding petition and admit exhibits into the record. (Id.

at 15-16).

With respect to finding Father in contempt and issuing sanctions, Judge 

Hilles explained that the trial court did not err in finding that Father was in 

civil contempt of the court’s order when Father took his daughter for a second 

COVID shot in direct contravention of the court’s July 16, 2021 and January 

28, 2022 orders. Given Father’s pattern of disobeying court orders and 

ignoring warnings of possible contempt, the court did not err in imposing a 
J-A26021-22

- 11 -

sanction of 72 hours of incarceration with a purge condition of a $500 fine. 

(Id. at 17-18). As to the foregoing points, we adopt Judge Hilles’ reasoning 

as our own. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/28/2022
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 1 Circulated 12/13/2022 12:28 PM
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 2
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 3
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 4
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 5
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 6
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 7
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 8
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 9
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 10
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 11
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 12
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 13
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 14
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 15
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 16
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 17
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 18
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 19
2019-06877-0502 Opinion, Page 20