### 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 th e Court of

Common Pleas of Delaware County entered on January 3 0, 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 tri al court set forth

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

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

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

We summarize the relevant background, as follows. On J une 16,

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

parties’ children, L.T.S., a male, born in May of 199 7, 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 C ommon Pleas in South

Carolina, where Father then resided, and where the p arties, in 2003, had

obtained a divorce decree that incorporated a custody ag reement. 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 modi fy 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 errone ously stated that Mother

filed the emergency complaint in custody on June 6, 2 011.

### J-A21023- 14

- 3 -

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

### relinquishing

jurisdiction and transferring the matter to the Delawa re County Court of

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

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

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

aforementioned petition and recommended that a tempo rary custody order

be entered awarding Mother sole legal and physical cust ody. See

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

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

custody order”). Id.

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

custody order. Father alleged that the Delaware Coun ty Court of Common

Pleas did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing on a ny 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, 2 013, following a hearing, the custody master denied Fa ther’s

petition. On April 17, 2013, Father requested a hea ring 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 date d

____________________________________________

2 

### The order, a copy of which is included in the certifie d 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 recommend ed order dated

October 18, 2011. Father filed timely notices of appe al 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 A buse of

Discretion When it Entered its Order dated June 17, 20 11

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

a Petition to Modify Custody When It Lacked Jurisdicti on 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 a n Abuse of

Discretion when it Found that the August 22, 2011 Sou th

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 a n 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 Fil ed On June

16, 2011, that South Carolina Was Exercising Continu ing 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 matte r has two separate

docket numbers, which are not duplicative, and that th e 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 a n 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 di d not have

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

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

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

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

Sp ecifically, Father acknowledges that the trial court had temporary

emergency jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA, but he a sserts 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 null ity, as was the

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

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

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

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

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

as follows:

A court’s decisio n 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 co urt

has overridden or misapplied the law, when its judgmen t is

manifestly unreasonable, or when there is insufficient e vidence

### J-A21023- 14

- 6 -

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

requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial cou rt

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 actio n. In its Rule

1925(a) opinion, the trial court thoroughly addresses F ather’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 tr ial court erred and

abused its discretion by failing to find that Mother an d 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 t his 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 a nd fair hearing de novo on

January 2, 2014. Specifically, Father asserts he did n ot 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 M other’s failure to testify

made it “impossible for [him] to prove his case with resp ect 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 si milar, but not

identical, to the fourth issue in the Statement of Que stions 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] da ted

April 9, 2013?

Rule 1925(b) statement, 2/25/14, at ¶ 8. This asserte d 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 fai r 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 respond ed 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 w aived on appeal);

see also Krebs

, supra (same). Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

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