J-S53002-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

I.C. 

Appellant

v.

E.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1410 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2010-5932

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

CONCURRING/DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:

 FILED: FEBRUARY 22, 2021

I agree this case must be sent back to the trial court. However, I 

disagree with the Majority’s determination that this order is a final, appealable 

order. The order was not entered after a full hearing, it was not intended to 

constitute a determination of the ultimate issues between the parties, and, in 

fact, it did not “dispose of all claims and all parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). 

Therefore, I would quash. 

The hearings on June 11, 2020, and June 18, 2020, pertained to Father’s 

petition for contempt. At both, Father participated pro se. At the conclusion 

of the June 18, 2020 hearing, the court denied Father’s petition for contempt. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S53002-20

- 2 -

The court then decided to rule on Father’s petition for modification, stating it 

would cancel the master’s hearing on that petition in its order. The court 

asked Father if he objected; Father responded, “As best that I understand 

what’s going on, I do not. I trust you.” N.T., 6/18/20, at 115. At the 

conclusion of argument, the court denied Father’s petition for modification and 

entered an order allowing Father to text, call or FaceTime the children, “to 

ease [Father’s] way back into having some sort of relationship with [his] 

children. Id. 

The court stated in its opinion that the order “temporarily suspended 

Father’s partial custody and ordered reunification counseling.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/13/20, at 11. Notably, the further proceedings contemplated by 

the court were intended to allow reconsideration of its determination. The 

trial court stated the order was “designed to allow reconsideration [] with 

additional information gleaned from the interim reunification counseling and 

with a full analysis pursuant to [23] Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 [the custody factors.]” 

Id. The court also stated that it “is in the process of scheduling a trial on the 

ultimate issues in the case, the appeal is premature and should be quashed 

and this matter remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further 

proceedings.” Id. The interim order was precisely that—an order intended 

to allow Father and children to ease back into their relationship and participate 

in reunification counseling, and to give the court more information in order to 

make a final determination as to whether a modification of primary custody 
J-S53002-20

- 3 -

would be in the children’s best interests. Despite this, and despite the fact 

that the Majority recognizes that “a new evidentiary hearing” may be 

necessary, the Majority finds the order is final. See Williams v. Thornton, 

577 A.2d 215, 217 (Pa. Super. 1990) (order intended only to determine 

parties’ relation during pendency of custody litigation, not to resolve ultimate 

issues central to parties’ dispute, is interlocutory); see also G.B. v. M.M.B., 

670 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. Super. 1996) (custody order will be considered “final 

order” and appealable only if it is both entered after court has completed its 

hearings on merits and intended by court to constitute complete resolution of 

custody claims pending between parties).

In conclusion, I would find that the June 23, 2020 order is a temporary 

modification and, therefore, the instant appeal is premature. I also stress that 

before the court can engage in a comprehensive analysis of the statutory 

custody factors, a hearing is necessary with respect to the information gleaned 

from interim reunification counseling and from close examination of the issue 

of Mother’s alienation.