J-A21023-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

V.L.S. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v.

S.C. 

 Appellee No. 661 EDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order Entered January 30, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2009-11738 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

V.L.S. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v.

S.C. 

 Appellee No. 662 EDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order Entered January 30, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2011-10287 

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 

V.L.S. (“Father”) appeals from the custody order in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County entered on January 30, 2014, that 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A21023-14

- 2 - 

denied his de novo appeal from the findings of the custody master dated

April 9, 2013, and denied his petition to vacate the master’s recommended 

order dated October 18, 2011. After careful review, we affirm. 

In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court set forth 

the factual and procedural history in this case, which the testimonial and 

documentary evidence supports. As such, we adopt it herein. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 2-4. 

We summarize the relevant background, as follows. On June 16, 

2011, Mother filed an emergency complaint in custody with respect to the 

parties’ children, L.T.S., a male, born in May of 1997, and C.M.S., a female, 

born in June of 1998.1

 At the time, a custody proceeding between the 

parties was pending in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas in South 

Carolina, where Father then resided, and where the parties, in 2003, had 

obtained a divorce decree that incorporated a custody agreement. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 2. By order dated June 17, 2011, the trial court 

deemed Mother’s emergency complaint a petition to modify and listed it with 

the custody master. Id. Following communication between the respective 

trial courts regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the Richland County Court 

____________________________________________ 

1

 In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court erroneously stated that Mother 

filed the emergency complaint in custody on June 6, 2011. 
J-A21023-14

- 3 - 

of Common Pleas issued an order on August 22, 2011,2

 relinquishing 

jurisdiction and transferring the matter to the Delaware County Court of 

Common Pleas (“transfer order”). Id. at 3. The transfer order was 

registered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on May 14, 2012. 

Id. On October 18, 2011, the custody master held a hearing on Mother’s 

aforementioned petition and recommended that a temporary custody order 

be entered awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody. See

Temporary Custody Order, 10/18/11. The trial court adopted the 

recommended temporary custody order on October 20, 2011 (“temporary 

custody order”). Id. 

On February 25, 2013, Father filed a petition to vacate the temporary 

custody order. Father alleged that the Delaware County Court of Common 

Pleas did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing on any pleading filed by 

Mother prior to the date of the transfer order. See Petition to Vacate, at ¶ 

11. As such, Father requested that the temporary custody order be vacated. 

On April 9, 2013, following a hearing, the custody master denied Father’s 

petition. On April 17, 2013, Father requested a hearing de novo. The trial 

court held a hearing on January 2, 2014, during which Father represented 

himself pro se, and Mother was represented by counsel. By order dated 

____________________________________________ 

2

 The order, a copy of which is included in the certified record, is dated 

August 22, 2011, and time-stamped August 23, 2011. 
J-A21023-14

- 4 - 

January 21, 2014, and entered on January 30, 2014, the trial court denied 

Father’s de novo appeal from the findings of the master dated April 9, 2013, 

and denied his petition to vacate the master’s recommended order dated 

October 18, 2011. Father filed timely notices of appeal and concise 

statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).3

 On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review: 

A. Whether the Trial Court Erred and Committed an Abuse of 

Discretion When it Entered its Order dated June 17, 2011 

Denying Mother’s Emergency Petition, and Treating It Instead as 

a Petition to Modify Custody When It Lacked Jurisdiction to do so 

Under the UCCJEA and as such, the Resulting October 18, 2011 

Order of Custody was Invalid[?] 

B. Whether the Trial Court Erred and/or Committed an Abuse of 

Discretion when it Found that the August 22, 2011 South 

Carolina Order Transferring Jurisdiction was Effective Prior to the 

Date that it was Registered as a Foreign Custody Order on May 

14, 2012[?] 

C. Whether the Trial Court Erred and/or Committed an Abuse of 

Discretion When it Failed to Find That Mother and Her Counsel 

Committed Fraud Upon The Court When They Failed to Advise 

The Court In Their Emergency Petition For Custody Filed On June 

16, 2011, that South Carolina Was Exercising Continuing and 

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Custody Matter Under The Uniform 

Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“The 

UCCJEA”)[?]

____________________________________________ 

3

 The record reveals that the underlying custody matter has two separate 

docket numbers, which are not duplicative, and that the subject order was 

filed under both docket numbers. As such, Father filed notices of appeal 

under both docket numbers, which this Court consolidated sua sponte. 
J-A21023-14

- 5 - 

D. Whether the Trial Court Erred and/or Committed an Abuse of 

Discretion When it Denied Father’s De Novo Appeal of the 

October 18, 2011 Order[?] 

Father’s brief at 4.

In his first issue, Father argues that the trial court did not have 

jurisdiction over Mother’s aforementioned petition, filed as an emergency 

complaint in custody, but deemed by the court as a petition to modify 

pursuant to the jurisdictional criteria set forth in the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482. 

Specifically, Father acknowledges that the trial court had temporary 

emergency jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA, but he asserts that it did not 

have jurisdiction over a petition to modify. See Father’s brief at 16. Thus, 

Father argues that the June 17, 2011 order scheduling the matter as a 

petition to modify before the custody master was a nullity, as was the 

resulting temporary custody order. Id. at 16-17. In his second related 

issue, Father argues that the temporary custody order was likewise a nullity 

because the court did not have jurisdiction over Mother’s custody action until 

the transfer order was registered in the trial court on May 14, 2012. 

Our standard of review for Father’s first and second issues on appeal is 

as follows: 

A court’s decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction is subject to 

an abuse of discretion standard of review and will not be 

disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Under 

Pennsylvania law, an abuse of discretion occurs when the court 

has overridden or misapplied the law, when its judgment is 

manifestly unreasonable, or when there is insufficient evidence 
J-A21023-14

- 6 - 

of record to support the court’s findings. An abuse of discretion 

requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial court 

misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. 

Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282, 285 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation 

omitted). 

Upon careful review, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial 

court in exercising jurisdiction over Mother’s custody action. In its Rule 

1925(a) opinion, the trial court thoroughly addresses Father’s assertions. 

Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion as dispositive of 

Father’s first and second issues. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 7-9. 

Turning to Father’s third issue, he argues that the trial court erred and 

abused its discretion by failing to find that Mother and her counsel 

committed fraud upon the court by not including in the emergency complaint 

a provision concerning the pending custody action in the Richland County 

Court of Common Pleas. Upon careful review, we discern no abuse of 

discretion by the court in failing to find fraud in this regard. We likewise 

adopt the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion as dispositive of the arguments 

advanced by Father in support of the third issue raised in this appeal. See

Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 9-10, 12-13. 

 In his final issue, Father argues that the trial court erred and abused 

its discretion in failing to provide him with a full and fair hearing de novo on 

January 2, 2014. Specifically, Father asserts he did not receive a proper 

hearing de novo because (1) the proceeding was conducted as a colloquy 
J-A21023-14

- 7 - 

and (2) Mother did not testify. Father asserts that Mother’s failure to testify 

made it “impossible for [him] to prove his case with respect to fraud.” 

Father’s brief at 29. 

We observe that Father’s concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal includes ten paragraphs, only one of which is similar, but not 

identical, to the fourth issue in the Statement of Questions Involved in his 

brief. Specifically, Father’s concise statement raises the following question:

8. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and 

committed an abuse of discretion when it denied Father’s de 

novo appeal from the [f]indings of [the custody master] dated 

April 9, 2013? 

Rule 1925(b) statement, 2/25/14, at ¶ 8. This asserted error is a boilerplate 

claim that the court erred in denying his de novo appeal and thereby 

affirming the master’s April 9, 2013 findings.4

 As such, we conclude that 

Father has not preserved any claim that the trial court did not provide him 

with a full and fair de novo hearing.5 Therefore, Father has waived this 

argument on appeal. See Dietrich v. Dietrich, 923 A.2d 461, 463 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (stating that when an appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) 

____________________________________________ 

4

 In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court responded to this assertion by 

incorporating its discussion of subject matter jurisdiction previously set forth 

in its opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 7-9, 13-14. 

 

5

 Even if this claim had been preserved, based upon our review of the 

record, we would conclude that the issue is meritless. 
J-A21023-14

- 8 - 

statement, any issues not raised in that statement are waived on appeal); 

see also Krebs, supra (same). Accordingly, we affirm the order. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/24/2014 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 

 

 

 

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM

 
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 11:36 AM