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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 22, 2021

I.C. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on June 24, 2020, in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, that modified the existing 

custody order. The June 24, 2020 order granted E.C. (“Mother”) sole physical 

custody and suspended Father’s partial physical custody with respect to the 

parties’ daughters, L.C., born in December of 2004, and T.C., born in August 

of 2006 (collectively, “the Children”). Upon careful review, and for the reasons 

that follow, we vacate the June 24, 2020 order, and remand the matter for 

proceedings consistent with this Memorandum.

The certified docket reveals that Father and Mother have been involved 

in custody litigation since 2010. Throughout the underlying matter, Father 

____________________________________________

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

- 2 -

has alleged, largely unsuccessfully, that Mother has alienated the Children 

from him and that she has been in contempt of then-existing custody orders.

The final agreed-upon order issued by the Honorable Dominic F. Pileggi 

on March 29, 2016, which awarded the parties shared legal custody, Mother 

primary physical custody, and Father partial physical custody on alternating 

weekends and on Wednesday evenings, is relevant to this appeal. Order, 

3/29/16. In addition, the order awarded each party three non-consecutive 

weeks of vacation in the summer, and it set forth a holiday schedule. Id. 

Finally, the order specified that the custody exchange would occur at a public 

location in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania (“custody exchange location”). Id.

For reasons unclear in the certified record, the relationship between 

Father and the Children deteriorated. By order dated October 31, 2017, 

Judge Pileggi directed that the parties and the Children attend reunification 

counseling with Edward J. DiCesare, Ph.D. Order, 10/31/17, at ¶ 3.

In December of 2017, Father filed a petition to enforce the abovedescribed orders. Following a conference before the court-appointed custody 

master on March 13, 2018, the master found that Mother violated the 

October 31, 2017 order by not producing the Children at their scheduled 

counseling sessions with Dr. DiCesare. Temporary Order, 3/13/18, at ¶ I. 

Therefore, the temporary order dated March 13, 2018, provided that Mother 

would arrange for a third party to transport the Children to their counseling 
J-S53002-20

- 3 -

sessions; otherwise, the order provided that Father will provide transportation 

for the Children.1 Id. 

Following the next custody conference on August 14, 2018, a temporary 

order directed that the “order dated 3/29/2016 is still in effect; however[,] it 

shall not be enforced with respect to periods of custody.” Temporary Order, 

8/14/18, at 1. That order provided that the parties “shall continue with 

mandatory counseling with Dr. Edward DiCesare. Parties shall follow 

recommendations of Dr. DiCesare and shall present recommendations for 

future custody periods [at the] next [court] listing.” Id.

____________________________________________

1 Soon thereafter, on April 19, 2018, Mother filed a petition for protection 

from abuse (“PFA”) on behalf of the Children. Mother alleged that during the 

custody exchange on April 18, 2018, “Father pulled [T.C.] from [M]other’s car 

by her hair. . . . [L.C.] was pushed into something.” PFA Petition, 4/19/18, 

at ¶ 11. On April 19, 2018, the court granted a temporary PFA order 

prohibiting Father from having contact with the Children until further order of 

court. 

Mother’s counsel stated on the record in open court that he represented 

Mother in the PFA action involving “a serious and significant incident—. . . the 

[custody exchange location] incident.” N.T., 6/18/20, at 102. Father

described the incident alleged in the PFA petition as “the hair-pulling incident.” 

Id. at 89. However, Mother’s counsel stated that the incident occurred in the 

spring of 2019. Id. Based upon the date of the temporary PFA order, we 

conclude that Mother’s counsel provided the wrong year in his statement on 

the record in open court.

By way of further background, Mother’s counsel stated on the record in 

open court that the parties “reenlisted” Dr. DiCesare after the “hair-pulling 

incident” in order “to get . . . Father and these two kids back on track.” Id.

at 102–103.
J-S53002-20

- 4 -

There is no indication that Dr. DiCesare’s recommendations for custody 

were presented during the next custody conference, which occurred on 

October 22, 2018. A subsequent temporary order again maintained the 

March 29, 2016 order and directed that the parties coordinate weekly therapy 

sessions with Dr. DiCesare. Temporary Order, 10/22/18, at 1, 4. Further, it 

provided that the custody matter shall be relisted in ninety days to review 

Dr. DiCesare’s recommendations. Id. 

The docket reveals that the next custody conference did not occur until 

July 9, 2019. A temporary order provided, “[T]he order of 3/29/2016 shall 

remain in effect but shall not be enforced with respect to periods of custody 

except as provided in this temporary order.” Temporary Order, 7/9/19, at 1. 

The temporary order directed that Father shall have custody of the Children 

one time each week from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., inter alia. Id. at 3. 

The final custody conference occurred on September 23, 2019. By 

temporary order that same date, Father was awarded partial physical custody 

on Tuesdays from 7:15 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. and on Wednesdays from 6:35 

p.m. until 9:30 p.m. Temporary Order, 9/23/19, at 2. At that time, Father 

resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. N.T., 6/11/20, at 37. Mother resided 

in Boothwyn, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Id. The temporary order 

directed that on Wednesdays, the Children shall take the Septa Regional Rail 

“from Marcus Hook [train station] to University City [train station], where 

Father will pick them up. At the end of the visit, Father will transport them 
J-S53002-20

- 5 -

back home.” Temporary Order, 9/23/19, at 4. The order directed that on 

Tuesdays, Mother “will be driving . . . both ways. This will change if the train 

trip is successful.” Id. 

On November 7, 2019, Father filed a petition to modify the existing 

temporary order, wherein he requested shared legal and partial physical 

custody of the Children every weekend during the school year and shared 

physical custody during the summer on a week-on, week-off basis. Father’s 

petition consisted of eleven paragraphs, and he attached to his petition the 

September 23, 2019 temporary order. Father asserted that Mother “is 

refusing to comply with the current order.” Modification Petition, 11/7/19, at 

¶ 6. Specifically, Father asserted, “Mother has also tried to manipulate train 

schedules in terms of stating the girls were on the train.” Id. at ¶ 10.

Father’s petition for modification was listed for February 14, 2020, 

before the custody master. The custody master reassigned the case, and the 

custody conference was continued to March 16, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 

pandemic, the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County temporarily 

suspended hearings, and the custody conference did not occur. Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/13/20, at 3, n.1.

On February 14, 2020, Father filed a petition for contempt against 

Mother. Father’s petition consisted of exactly the same eleven paragraphs as 

the foregoing November 7, 2019 petition for modification, and he attached as 

Exhibit “A” the September 23, 2019 temporary order. Further, Father 
J-S53002-20

- 6 -

requested the same legal and physical-custody awards. The only difference 

in the petition for contempt was that Father requested, “Also to have [M]other 

sanctioned by the court and arrested for civil disobedience along with $1500 

counsel fees.” Contempt Petition, 2/14/20, at 2.

The court scheduled a contempt hearing for April 8, 2020, before the 

Honorable Nusrat J. Rashid. Because of the above-described temporary 

suspension of hearings, the matter was continued to June 11, 2020, and the 

hearing occurred on that date via teleconference. Father participated pro se, 

and Mother was represented by counsel. Both Father and Mother testified. 

The court then continued the hearing until June 18, 2020, for the purpose of 

performing in camera interviews of the Children. Id. at 66. On June 18, 

2020, Father again participated pro se, and Mother was represented by 

counsel. Following the Children’s testimony, Father, but not Mother, testified.

At the conclusion of the June 18, 2020 hearing, the trial court stated on 

the record, in open court: “I’m not finding Mother in contempt.” N.T., 

6/18/20, at 107. The court explained that its decision was based on the 

Children’s testimony. Id.

Thereafter, Mother’s counsel advised the trial court on the record, in 

open court, that Father has pending a petition for modification of the existing 

custody order. N.T., 6/18/20, at 111. Mother’s counsel explained the 

procedural history of Father’s November 7, 2019 modification petition and 

stated, in part, that Father’s petition is “awaiting a relist before another 
J-S53002-20

- 7 -

Master.” Id. at 111–113. The court then addressed Father and Mother’s 

counsel as follows:

THE COURT: So the reason why you haven’t gotten the new date 

is because right after you were in front of [the] Master, COVID 

hits.

* * *

All Masters’ hearings stopped.

[FATHER]: Understood.

THE COURT: You get the Judges now for something like this. I’m 

going to exercise the [c]ourt’s discretion regarding the 

modification and rule on the petition for modification—

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: —right now. And . . . in my order for the petition for 

modification, I’m going to cancel the Master’s hearing.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: . . . I can take jurisdiction of this petition for 

modification. I believe that it is crucial, necessary[,] and [in] the 

absolute best interest of these children that I give them some 

stability moving forward even if it only lasts a couple of months 

until you get back to court.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to that, [Father]?

[FATHER]: As best that I understand what’s going on, I do not. I 

trust you.

* * *

THE COURT: [Mother’s counsel]?

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: No objection, Your Honor.
J-S53002-20

- 8 -

N.T., 6/18/20, at 113–115. The trial court then ruled as follows:

On the modification that is currently pending before the [c]ourt 

under the same docket number, I’m going to give sole physical 

custody to Mother. However, I’m going to allow Father to text, 

call, and initiate FaceTime with the girls directly to their phones. 

I’m not putting this in the order, but I will say to you, [Father], 

that I believe that this type of contact is the best way that I can 

see at this point, not being a child counselor or therapist, to ease 

your way back into having some sort of relationship with your 

children.

Id. at 115. In addition, the court ordered that the parties “return to Dr. 

DiCesare.” Id. at 119. However, Father then informed the court, “At the end 

[of Dr. DiCesare’s therapy], he said . . . I took you as far as I can go. I can’t 

go any further[.]” Id. at 120. The court responded that if Dr. DiCesare is 

unwilling to provide therapy again, “then I strongly encourage the parties to 

pick somebody new.” Id.

By order entered on June 24, 2020, the trial court denied Father’s 

petition for contempt. The court entered a separate order on June 24, 2020 

(“custody order”) that granted Father’s petition for modification; however, as 

the court indicated on the record in open court, the September 23, 2019 

temporary order was not modified in Father’s favor. Rather, the custody order 

awarded Mother sole physical custody, suspended Father’s partial physical 

custody, and maintained the parties’ award of shared legal custody. In 

addition, the custody order directed that the parties and the Children “shall 

resume family and reunification counseling with Dr. DiCesare.” Order, 

6/23/20, at ¶ 6. Further, the custody order directed, “[I]f Dr. DiCesare is 
J-S53002-20

- 9 -

unavailable, the parties shall mutually agree on a different counselor. If the 

parties are unable to agree, the [c]ourt shall be immediately notified through 

the filing of an appropriate [p]etition.” Id. at ¶ 6(c).

On July 23, 2020, Father, pro se, timely filed a notice of appeal from the 

custody order. On that same date, Father, pro se, filed a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). 

The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 13, 2020.

On appeal, represented by counsel, Father presents the following issues 

for our review:

1. Whether the trial court violated [Father’s] right to due process by 

ruling on an outstanding petition . . . to modify custody without 

notice, during a hearing on a separate petition for contempt[?]

2. Whether the trial court violated [Father’s] right to due process by 

refusing to allow [Father] to introduce evidence, both on the 

contempt issue and the surprise custody issue[?]

3. Whether the trial court demonstrated bias that violated [Father’s] 

right to due process[?]

4. Whether the trial court erred by failing to perform the necessary 

analysis when modifying the existing custody order[?]

5. Whether the trial court erred by failing to conform to law in 

issu[ing] the existing custody order[?]

Father’s Brief at 6.2

____________________________________________

2

 In the argument section of his brief, Father failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a) (providing, “The argument shall be divided into as many parts as 

there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in 

distinctive type or in type of distinctively displayed—the particular point 
J-S53002-20

- 10 -

The trial court, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, and Mother, in her 

counseled appellate brief, maintain that the custody order is not a final and 

appealable order. We address this first. It is well-settled:

To be appealable, a custody Order must be a final Order under

Pa.R.A.P. 702, Final Orders, and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5105, Right to

appellate review. For this Court to have jurisdiction, the appeal

must be from a final Order unless otherwise permitted by statute.

A final Order is one which effectively ends litigation or disposes of

the entire case.

Williams v. Thornton, 577 A.2d 215, 217 (Pa. Super. 1990) (citations 

omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (defining a final order as “one that 

disposes of all claims and all parties.”).

The trial court reasoned that the custody order is interlocutory and not 

appealable because it “was issued on a temporary basis.” Trial Court Opinion, 

8/13/20, at 9. The court explained, “The order temporarily suspended 

Father’s partial physical custody and ordered reunification counseling. The 

further proceedings contemplated by the [t]rial [c]ourt are specifically 

designed to allow reconsideration of its decision, with additional information 

____________________________________________

treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of the parties as are 

deemed pertinent.”). Instead, Father divided his argument into two parts, 

both of which have as headings the particular point treated therein. Father 

addressed all of his issues set forth in the Statement of Questions Involved in 

his brief in the two parts of his argument.
J-S53002-20

- 11 -

gleaned from the interim reunification counseling and with a full analysis 

pursuant to [23] Pa.C.S.A. § 5328.”3 Id. at 11.

The trial court relied upon Williams, 577 A.2d 215, and Sawko v. 

Sawko, 625 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 1993). In Williams, the father of two 

children appealed from an order that was entered in response to an emergency 

petition for custody filed during the pendency of the father’s petition to vacate 

a previous custody award to a third party. The order on appeal fashioned a 

custody award and suspended the father’s partial custody pending resolution 

of his petition to vacate custody. Because the order on appeal temporarily 

suspended the father’s partial custody, this Court concluded that the order 

was interlocutory and not appealable. Williams, 577 A.2d at 217.

Similarly, in Sawko, the mother of one child appealed from an order 

denying her petition to modify the existing custody order, wherein she 

requested primary physical custody. The order, however, increased the 

mother’s partial physical custody rights and scheduled a review hearing for a 

date certain approximately four months later. This Court concluded that the 

order was interlocutory and not appealable. Sawko, 625 A.2d at 696.

____________________________________________

3 Section 5328(a) of the Child Custody Act (“Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a), 

provides an enumerated list of factors a trial court must consider in 

determining the best interests of a child when awarding any form of custody. 

Here, the trial court did not consider the Section 5328(a) custody factors, an 

issue we discuss infra.
J-S53002-20

- 12 -

Mother, in her appellate brief, cites G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. 

Super. 1996) (en banc). In that case, this Court held, “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.” Id. at 720.

In G.B., the order provided for a partial physical-custody award. 

However, the order was entered pursuant to a prior custody order, “which 

indicated that temporary orders for visitation would be entered periodically 

until the scheduled hearing on a date certain,” and the date was in the future. 

G.B., 670 A.2d at 721. Because the order was entered before the court 

completed its hearing on the merits, we concluded that the order was not final 

and appealable. Id. at 722.

In contrast to the foregoing cases, the instant custody order resolved 

Father’s modification petition; as such, no petition remained pending. Indeed, 

unlike the temporary orders issued by the custody master, the word 

“temporary” is not included in the title of the custody order. Further, the 

instant custody order did not provide that the custody award was made 

pending resolution of the custody claims between the parties, and it did not 

schedule a future review hearing.

Nonetheless, as set forth above, the trial court stated that it 

contemplated further proceedings “designed to allow reconsideration of its 
J-S53002-20

- 13 -

decision.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/20, at 11. Therefore, the court reasoned 

that the custody order “was issued on a temporary basis.” Id. at 9. The trial 

court’s statement to Father made on the record in open court provides insight

into the court’s reasoning: “[T]here are never any final orders in a custody 

case because the circumstances that are surrounding the best interests of the 

children are fluid and change constantly. And cases just keep going[,] and 

they keep moving.” N.T., 6/11/20, at 48–49.

This Court explained long ago that “the availability of modification upon 

a proper showing by the parties” is implicit in custody orders. Parker v. 

MacDonald, 496 A.2d 1244, 1247 (Pa. Super. 1985). In Parker, the order 

on appeal included language providing that the court would entertain an 

application for review. However, because the order completely disposed of 

the parties’ rights to custody unless and until a new petition was filed, we held 

that the order was final and appealable. Id.

Likewise, on its face, the present custody order completely disposed of 

Father’s modification petition, and the certified docket reveals no additional 

hearing date. To the extent that the trial court stated what is already implicit 

in custody orders, i.e., that modifying a custody award is available upon 

petition and if proven to be in the child’s best interests, that fact does not 

defeat the finality of the custody order. Therefore, we decline to quash this 

appeal.
J-S53002-20

- 14 -

Turning to the merits of this case, we are mindful of the following scope 

and standard of review of custody orders:

[T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or 

inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, 

nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no 

competent evidence to support it. . . . However, this broad 

scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the 

duty or the privilege of making its own independent 

determination. . . . Thus, an appellate court is empowered 

to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible 

factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may 

not interfere with those conclusions unless they are 

unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual findings; 

and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion. 

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2009) 

(quoting Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Super. 

2001)). Moreover,

[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we 

defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the 

opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of 

the witnesses.

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial 

court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern 

of the trial court is the best interest of the child. Appellate 

interference is unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration 

of the best interest of the child was careful and thorough, 

and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion.

R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations omitted). The test 

is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s 

conclusions. Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa. Super. 

2006).

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014).

The primary concern in any custody case is the best interests of the 

child. “The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, 
J-S53002-20

- 15 -

considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, 

intellectual, moral, and spiritual wellbeing.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 

512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. 

Super. 2004)).

In his first issue, Father argues that the trial court violated his right to 

due process by ruling on his pending modification petition, without notice, 

during a hearing on his petition for contempt. Father correctly asserts that 

the trial court did not provide advance notice that modification would be an 

issue during the contempt proceeding. Father asserts, “At no point prior to 

the conclusion of the June 18 hearing/interview did the trial court give even 

the slightest notice that Father’s custody would be challenged.” Father’s Brief

at 27–28. Father describes this as “a custody modification by ambush.” Id.

at 26.

Father cites S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014), for the 

following legal principle:

This Court has held that the appropriate manner to bring about a 

change in custody is by the filing of a petition for modification, 

which would follow generally, the procedure under Pa.R.C.P. No. 

1915.3. Choplosky [v. Choplosky], 584 A.2d [340, 342-343 

(Pa. Super. 1990)]. A petition for modification must be filed in 

order for a court to review a case for permanent modification of a 

custody order. Id. at 342 (citing Seger v. Seger, 547 A.2d 424 

(Pa. Super. 1988)). Apart from these procedures authorized 

under the Child Custody Act and Rules, the filing of a proper 

petition also serves the important purpose of providing notice and 

an opportunity to be heard to satisfy the requirements of due 

process attendant to custody proceedings. Id. Thus, while it is 

generally true efforts seeking to modify custody may be filed at 
J-S53002-20

- 16 -

any time, courts cannot allow parties to forgo the general notice 

requirements which otherwise must be strictly observed. Id.

Id. at 405.

This Court has explained, “Notice, in our adversarial process, ensures 

that each party is provided adequate opportunity to prepare and thereafter 

properly advocate its position, ultimately exposing all relevant factors from 

which the finder of fact may make an informed judgment.” Langendorger 

v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303, 309 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

It is well-settled that “the modification of physical custody is an 

improper sanction for contempt.”4 J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1262 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

4 The Child Custody Law provides as follows:

§ 5323. Award of custody.

* * *

(g) Contempt for noncompliance with any custody order.—

(1) A party who willfully fails to comply with any custody

order may, as prescribed by general rule, be adjudged in

contempt. Contempt shall be punishable by any 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.
J-S53002-20

- 17 -

Super. 2017) (en banc). However, we have stated, “[A] trial court may 

transfer physical custody at the conclusion of a contempt hearing only when 

the modification suits the child’s best interests in light of the statutory factors 

and that the respondent has been given particular notice of that objective.” 

Id. at 1268. We explained:

[W]e stress that the reason for the notice requirements is more 

than a procedural formality. Indeed, without particularized notice 

that custody would also be at issue at the contempt hearing, a 

respondent would not be prepared to litigate the custody dispute 

during the contempt proceedings and the trial court would be 

denied the benefit of both parties’ relevant evidence concerning 

the children’s well-being. Consequently, this Court previously 

explained in Langendorfer, [797 A.2d] at 309, the trial court 

would lack the required information to make the “quintessentially 

crucial judgment” as to the children’s best interests.

Id.

Initially, we conclude that Father’s first issue is waived for his failure to 

lodge an objection during the subject proceeding to the trial court ruling on 

his modification petition at the conclusion of the contempt proceeding. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing, “Issues not raised in the lower court are waived 

____________________________________________

(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. § 5323(g)(1).
J-S53002-20

- 18 -

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); see also Thompson v. 

Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 475-476 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted) 

(stating, “In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must 

make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of the 

proceedings before the trial court. Failure to timely object to a basic and 

fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue.”).5

As set forth above, the trial court stated on the record in open court at 

the conclusion of the subject proceeding, “I can take jurisdiction of this 

petition for modification. I believe that it is crucial, necessary[,] and [in] the 

absolute best interest of these children that I give them some stability moving 

forward.” N.T., 6/18/20, at 114. The court then inquired of Father whether 

he had any objection to this, and Father replied, “As best that I understand 

what’s going on, I do not. I trust you.” Id. at 115. As such, we deem the

first issue waived.

Even if Father’s first issue were not waived, we conclude that it would 

fail. The trial court did not modify Father’s custody rights as a sanction for 

contempt. Indeed, Father was the petitioning party in the contempt 

____________________________________________

5 Father’s pro se status during the subject proceeding is of no consequence to 

our conclusion that he waived his first issue on appeal. See Wilkins v. 

Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[P]ro se status confers no 

special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to 

represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume 

that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”) (citation 

omitted).
J-S53002-20

- 19 -

proceeding, and the court denied that petition. Moreover, in contrast to the 

appellant in J.M., 164 A.3d 1260, the instant trial court explained in its 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that it modified Father’s physical custody in 

furtherance of the Children’s best interests and further, that Father had notice 

of the same, as follows:

Father’s Petition for Contempt requested[,] inter alia, that 

he be granted partial physical custody. Father’s Petition for 

Modification also requested[,] inter alia, that he be granted partial 

physical custody.

The hearing for the Petition for Contempt was conducted 

initially in a telephonic proceeding on June 11 2020[,] and, with 

the record remaining open, resumed on June 18, 2020[,] so that 

the [t]rial [c]ourt could interview the [C]hildren prior to a decision. 

During both portions of the hearing, Father argued why he 

believed that custody should be modified. Although the [t]rial 

[c]ourt advised Father that it was not prone to amend custody on 

a contempt petition unless it was in the best interests of the 

[C]hildren, the trial court determined at the conclusion of all 

evidence and an extensive conversation with the minor children, 

that an emergent situation existed that directly impacted the 

[C]hildren’s safety and well[-]being and that it was in the 

immediate best interests of the [C]hildren to decide both petitions 

simultaneously. ([N.T.,] 6/18/20[, at] 111, 114). . . .

Since Father himself was seeking modification of custody 

along with a finding of contempt in the [p]etition for [c]ontempt, 

there was no violation of due process, nor was it prejudicial to 

Father, to address modification without a specific notice that the 

[p]etition for [m]odification would be heard.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/20, at 3–4 (footnotes omitted) (some citations to 

record omitted).

Father’s own testimony supports the court’s finding that Father argued 

why the existing temporary custody order should be modified, as follows:
J-S53002-20

- 20 -

I have not had a single dinner visit [with the Children] in almost 

four years, a single dinner visit in almost four years. This [existing 

temporary] order was the culmination of me having to prove via

a counselor that I am of safe mind and I’m [of] good ability—I’m 

a good father. I had the . . . counselor speak to the Master on my 

behalf. I mean, I don’t know what else to say, but I’ve been 

dealing with this for 10 years, and . . . the thing is these children 

have been . . . taught, they [have] been encouraged, and now 

these behaviors are enabled. So this is a systemic issue. This is 

a very systemic issue. And I’ve been saying this to these [c]ourts 

for years. If we keep going down this path of giving full control 

to somebody who literally . . . does not want me to see my 

children, that’s . . . where the argument is. I want to see my 

children as much as I can, and [Mother’s] stance, she’ll pay lip 

service to the [c]ourt, but she will never give me my children . . . 

unless the courts step in.

N.T., 6/11/20, at 22–23. Father further explained as follows:

[Mother] has fought, encouraged, and now enabled [the 

Children’s] behavior of disrespect and noncompliance of the 

[temporary] order. [A]s far as [Mother’s] noncompliance, I would 

go to the visits every single time, every single visit. Mom would 

physically bring [the Children] there[,] and then make a 

statement that she can’t get them out of the car, nor would she 

try. I’ve offered solutions to this to her to her face. Okay, let’s 

all get out of the car. I’ll buy everybody dinner at Panera Bread. 

Let’s all sit down. I’ve gotten excuses [from the Children], oh, my 

hair is wet, I can’t get out of the car, or nope, I’m in my pajamas, 

I can’t get out of the car. Whatever excuse is possible to deny my 

custody of my children has been given. Mom will go as far as what 

the order says to bring the [C]hildren there, but she won’t go to 

. . . effectuating my custody by getting them out of the car. . . . 

I’m unable to get them out of the car, Mom’s unable to get them 

out of the car. Mom refuses to punish [the Children]. . . . These 

behaviors are encouraged [by Mother].

Id. at 9–10. Father also testified, pursuant to the September 23, 2019 

temporary order, that on the first occasion that the Children took the train to 

see him, they ran away from him on foot through the streets of Philadelphia, 

and he chased them on foot. Id. at 14–15. Further, he testified that on 
J-S53002-20

- 21 -

unspecified occasions Mother took the Children to the train station for their 

trip to see Father, but the Children exited the train before the University City 

train station. Id. at 19–20.

Likewise, the Children’s in camera testimony supports the trial court’s 

finding that an emergent situation existed affecting the Children’s safety and 

well-being. Indeed, the Children acknowledged that they refused to get out 

of Mother’s car at the custody exchange location. N.T., 6/18/20, at 76. The 

Children stated that on one occasion, Father pulled T.C. out of Mother’s car by 

her hair, and that Father then held them in his grip, causing L.C. to bump into 

a pole as Father took them to his car. The Children indicated that this situation 

culminated in the police arriving at the custody exchange location. Id. at 63–

71. In addition, the Children testified with respect to running away from 

Father when they exited the train at the University City train station, that

Father chased them, Father tripped L.C., and the police arrived at the scene. 

Id. at 35–62.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the testimonial evidence 

supports the trial court’s decision to enter a custody award at the conclusion 

of the contempt hearing in furtherance of the Children’s best interests. 

Moreover, Father had sufficient notice due to (1) his request for increased 

physical custody set forth in his contempt petition; and (2) his reference to 

the same during the subject proceeding as a result of Mother’s alleged 

contempt and/or alienation over a ten-year period. In addition, the court had 
J-S53002-20

- 22 -

the benefit of relevant evidence concerning the Children’s well-being, namely, 

the Children’s in camera testimony. As such, this case is distinguishable from 

J.M., 164 A.3d 1260, where we concluded that the trial court erred in 

transferring physical custody as a sanction for contempt because the court 

failed to provide notice that custody was an issue. Accordingly, even if 

Father’s first issue were not waived, we would discern no abuse of discretion.

In his second issue, Father argues that the trial court violated his due 

process rights by refusing to allow him to introduce evidence both on his 

contempt and custody-modification petitions.6 We conclude that this issue 

also is waived because Father failed to request the introduction of evidence 

during the subject proceeding. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Thompson, 963 A.2d at 

475-476.

Even if not waived, we would conclude that Father’s second issue is 

without merit. This Court has explained, “The right of a litigant to in-court 

presentation of evidence is essential to due process; in almost every setting 

where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an 

opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” M.O. v. F.W., 

42 A.3d 1068, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2012). Further, “A question regarding 

whether a due process violation occurred is a question of law for which the 

____________________________________________

6 Father did not file an appeal from the order denying his petition for 

contempt. Therefore, that order is not before this Court. To the extent that 

Father raises an issue regarding the contempt order, we do not review it.
J-S53002-20

- 23 -

standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” 

Commonwealth v. Tejada, 161 A.3d 313, 317 (Pa. Super. 2017).

The trial court explained in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which is 

supported by the testimony, as follows:

The [t]rial [c]ourt never refused Father the opportunity to 

offer evidence. To the contrary, the [t]rial [c]ourt requested 

Father multiple times to provide evidence in support of his claims. 

([N.T.,] 6/11/20[, at] 7, 38–39, 55; [N.T.,] 6/18/20[, at] 93). 

Father was permitted to provide his testimony and admitted that 

he did not have any evidence. ([N.T.,] 6/11/20[, at] 38–40).

Father requested, during the telephonic portion of the 

hearing, to introduce a tracking device[;] however [,] he did not 

have the alleged evidence in hand to submit to the [t]rial [c]ourt 

([N.T.,] 6/11/20[, at] 52–53)[,] and he did not renew his request 

during the in-person portion seven (7) days later. As the record 

was still open, [if] Father had the evidence to directly submit to 

the trial court, the trial court would have accepted said evidence 

for consideration provided that an appropriate objection was not 

raised.

Father also never requested to call or question any 

witnesses at either portion of the hearing.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/20, at 4–5. We discern no abuse of discretion by 

the trial court. Therefore, if Father’s second issue were not waived, we would 

conclude that it fails.

In his third issue, Father maintains the trial court violated his due 

process rights by demonstrating bias during the subject proceeding. 

Specifically, Father asserts that the trial court considered evidence outside of 

the record, namely, a summary of facts provided on the record in open court 

by Mother’s counsel. Father’s Brief at 29–31. We disagree. 
J-S53002-20

- 24 -

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated as follows: 

The [t]rial [c]ourt considered all evidence, presented in the 

form of testimony of Father and Mother, and the statements made 

by the [C]hildren, when rendering the decision in this matter. . . .

The [t]rial [c]ourt permitted [Mother’s counsel] to argue his 

client’s position, however, [Mother’s counsel] was not sworn as a 

witness nor treated as such by the [t]rial [c]ourt. [Mother’s 

counsel] stated his understanding of the factual background and 

procedural stance of the custody case as would be expected by 

the [t]rial [c]ourt of any attorney advocating for his or her client. 

Father, acting as his own counsel, was afforded the opportunity to 

do the same. [Mother’s counsel’s] personal knowledge of the case 

appeared to be based on his longstanding representation of his 

client[,] and there was no error in the [t]rial [c]ourt allowing 

[counsel] to present any facts that he believed were pertinent to 

his client’s position and the conclusions that he wished the [t]rial 

[c]ourt to draw from [the] same. . . .

Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/20, at 5–6. Upon review of the subject proceedings, 

we discern no abuse of discretion by the court. Our thorough examination of 

the notes of testimony reveals that in fashioning the custody order, the court 

relied on the Children’s in camera testimony. N.T., 6/18/20, at 84, 114. 

Father’s third issue fails.

Father’s fourth and fifth issues are dispositive of this case. Father 

argues that the court committed an error of law by neglecting to perform an 

analysis of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) in issuing the custody order. We are 

constrained to agree.

Section 5328(a) of the Act provides, “In ordering any form of custody, 

the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all 

relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect 
J-S53002-20

- 25 -

the safety of the child. . . .” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). This Court has interpreted 

“form of custody” to mean the following seven types of custody listed in 

Section 5323(a): Shared physical custody; Primary physical custody; Partial

physical custody; Sole physical custody; Supervised physical custody; shared

legal custody; and Sole legal custody. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 402; 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 5323(a) (Award of custody); Cf. M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1059–1060 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that the trial court was not required to address the 

Section 5328(a) factors because the court was deciding a “discrete and narrow 

issue ancillary to a materially unchallenged custody arrangement.”).

In this case, the custody order awarded Mother sole physical custody. 

Thus, the trial court was required to consider the following factors set forth in 

Section 5328(a):

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.–In ordering any form of custody, the court 

shall determine the best interest of the child by considering 

all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those 

factors which affect the safety of the child, including the 

following:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the child and 

another party.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or 

member of the party’s household, whether there is a 

continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party 

and which party can better provide adequate physical 

safeguards and supervision of the child.
J-S53002-20

- 26 -

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) 

and (2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and 

involvement with protective services).

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on 

behalf of the child.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s 

education, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on 

the child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the 

other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where 

reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the 

child from harm.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, 

stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the 

child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily 

physical, emotional, developmental, educational and 

special needs of the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or 

ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the 

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with 

one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from 

abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness 

or inability to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or 

member of a party’s household.
J-S53002-20

- 27 -

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or 

member of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).

This Court has stated that “[a]ll of the factors listed in [S]ection 5328(a)

are required to be considered by the trial court when entering a custody 

order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in 

original). Moreover,

Section 5323(d) provides that a trial court “shall delineate 

the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a 

written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Additionally, 

“section 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory 

assessment of the sixteen [Section 5328 custody] factors prior to 

the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.” C.B. 

v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 70 

A.3d 808 (Pa. 2013). . . .

In expressing the reasons for its decision, “there is no 

required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that 

is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that 

the custody decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v. 

M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013). . . . A court’s 

explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately 

addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section 5323(d). 

Id.

A.V., 87 A.3d at 822-823.

Instantly, the trial court failed to expressly consider the Section 5328(a) 

factors on the record in open court or in a written opinion or order. In failing 

to do so, the court committed an error of law. J.R.M., 33 A.3d at 652; C.B., 

65 A.3d at 955. Thus, we are constrained to remand the matter to the trial 

court to consider the Section 5328(a) factors.
J-S53002-20

- 28 -

Accordingly, we vacate the June 24, 2020 order and remand the matter 

for proceedings consistent with this Memorandum. On remand, the trial court 

shall enumerate all of the Section 5328(a) factors and explain its consideration 

of them in determining the Children’s best interests. In so doing, the trial 

court may hold a new evidentiary hearing, if necessary.

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judge Strassburger joins the Memorandum.

Judge Lazarus files a Concurring & Dissenting Memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/22/21