J-A12003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

EMANUELE CASSANI

v.

OLGA SOFIA KAMIAK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2961 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered November 22, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2019-20404

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 12, 2023

Olga Sofia Kamiak (“Mother”) appeals pro se from the November 22, 

2022 custody order concerning the parties’ four-year-old son, A.C. (“Child”). 

The challenged order denied as moot the emergency petition for contempt file 

by Emanuele Cassani (“Father”); denied the parties’ cross-claims to modify

the custody order; and granted Father’s request to travel with Child to Italy 

in December of 2022, inter alia.

1

 We vacate and remand.

It is undisputed that Father is from Italy, and Mother is from Belarus.

Father initiated a divorce action in 2019, and the parties filed cross-complaints 

for custody of Child that same year. The trial court issued a custody order on 

January 14, 2020 (“original order”), when Child was twenty-one months old, 

____________________________________________

1 Father did not file an appellee brief in this case.
J-A12003-23

- 2 -

which awarded the parties shared legal and physical custody on an alternating 

weekly basis. In the highly contentious underlying custody action, the parties 

never contested the shared custody award.

Given their countries of origin, the original order included parameters 

for the parties to travel internationally with Child. It required that Child have 

a United States passport and that it be renewed on a timely basis. However, 

the original order prohibited Father from obtaining an Italian passport for 

Child. In addition, when either party desired to take an international trip with 

Child, the court required that he or she “submit a proposed order to the court 

which shall contain Child’s proposed travel dates, itinerary, flight information 

and address while traveling [abroad]. The parent proposing travel shall give 

a minimum of 45 days written notice.” Order, 1/14/20, at ¶ 9. 

The ensuing procedural history is relevant to this appeal. On October 

25, 2021, Mother filed a counseled petition to modify the original order, 

wherein she requested, in part, that the custody schedule be modified from

Child alternating between her and Father on a weekly basis to a 2-2-3 basis, 

which she averred was more suitable for the then three-year-old Child. In 

addition, Mother requested that the court suspend Child’s international 

traveling until he is ten years old, alleging that Father intended to abscond 

with Child. Father filed an answer denying Mother’s allegations. 

On November 22, 2021, Father filed a cross-petition to modify the 

original order. He requested, in part, that the parties no longer be required 
J-A12003-23

- 3 -

to submit a proposed order for international travel and that they be mandated 

to provide 30 days’ notice of proposed travel rather than 45 days’ notice. 

Father also requested that the court modify the Christmas custody schedule 

to accommodate his desire to travel with Child to Italy in alternating years.

The trial court scheduled a hearing on the above petitions for March 30, 

2022. Pursuant to a scheduling order, on March 23, 2022, and March 25, 

2022, Father and Mother, through counsel, filed their respective pre-trial 

memoranda which included, in part, the names of witnesses to be called and

an analysis of the custody factors delineated in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). For 

reasons unspecified in the record, the court held a conference and not an 

evidentiary hearing on March 30, 2022, which resulted in the interim order 

dated March 30, 2022 (“interim order”). The trial court docket reveals that 

no record was made of the March 30, 2022 proceeding.

The interim order modified the original order by permitting either party, 

when Child was in the weekly custody of the other, to exercise custody for two 

hours after school until 6:00 p.m. on two separate occasions during the week

and to pick Child up from school on those occasions. With respect to Mother’s 

request that the court suspend Father’s travel with Child to Italy until age ten,

the order provided that neither party shall travel with Child “until the [s]tatus 
J-A12003-23

- 4 -

hearing on April 13, 2022.”2 Interim Order, 3/30/22, at ¶ 6. The terms of 

the original order otherwise remained in effect. 

Prior to the scheduled status hearing, on a date not revealed in the 

record, Father submitted a proposed order to travel with Child to Italy from 

August 24, 2022, until September 7, 2022. 

The trial court held the status conference with the parties’ counsel as 

scheduled, during which it signed the proposed order allowing Father to travel 

to Italy with Child from August 24, 2022, until September 7, 2022. The April 

13, 2022 order (“final order”) also directed Mother to provide Father with 

Child’s U.S. passport within fifteen days; directed Father to provide copies of 

his driver’s license, green card, and passport to be kept on file with the trial 

court; and it set forth the itinerary for the proposed trip. Mother timely 

appealed pro se from the final order, which this Court docketed at 1012 EDA 

2022. 

Thereafter, the parties filed the following pleadings which gave rise to 

the order which is the subject of this appeal (also referred to as “subject 

order”). On June 3, 2022, Father filed an emergency petition incorporating 

two requests, one for contempt of the final order and the other to modify the 

____________________________________________

2 Mother, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the interim order, which 

this Court docketed at 1174 EDA 2022. By order filed on June 21, 2022, we 

quashed the appeal as interlocutory. 
J-A12003-23

- 5 -

final order. At the time Father filed these petitions, Mother’s appeal at 1012 

EDA 2022 remained pending. 

Father asserted that Mother had contravened the final order by failing 

to provide Child’s passport. In addition, Father requested that Child’s 

two-hour visits with the noncustodial parent be eliminated. He alleged that

those visits had caused Child “extreme distress” and confusion “about who is 

picking him up [from school] and where he will be staying in the evening.” 

Emergency Petition to Modify, 6/3/22, at ¶ 5(b)(xii)-(xiii). Father requested 

that the court modify the final order by returning to an alternating weekly 

custody schedule.

On August 11, 2022, Mother filed an amended answer to Father’s 

emergency petition for contempt, wherein she asserted, inter alia, that the 

passport issue was moot due to this Court’s order in her appeal at 1012 EDA 

2022. Indeed, in an order filed on June 22, 2022, this Court granted Mother’s 

request for a stay of the final order and directed Father to post $50,000.00 as 

security for Child’s return from Italy on September 7, 2022. After Father 

complied with that order, this Court removed the stay on July 20, 2022, and 

directed Mother to provide Child’s passport to Father no later than August 1, 

2022.

3

 As such, Father and Child had returned to the United States from Italy 

____________________________________________

3 This Court “ordered Father to post $50,000.00 as security, noting that he 

admitted making threats in the past that he would abscond with Child to Italy,” 

which would be removed when Father “informed us that he had posted 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A12003-23

- 6 -

by the time Mother filed her amended answer to Father’s above-described 

emergency contempt petition.

On October 28, 2022, while her appeal at 1012 EDA 2022 remained 

pending, Mother filed an amended answer to Father’s emergency petition for 

modification of the final order and counterclaim. Mother alleged that it was in 

Child’s best interest to modify the custody schedule by alternating custody 

between the parties on a 2-2-3-day basis. Further, she alleged that Father, 

at a time unspecified in record, had proposed another trip with Child to Italy 

in December of 2022. She also renewed her request that Child’s international 

travel be suspended until he is ten years old. Mother also averred that

Father’s recent trip to Italy with Child “was a dry run for Father to retain Child 

____________________________________________

security.” Cassani v. Karniak, 289 A.3d 85, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS

2762 **2-3 (Pa. Super. filed November 22, 2022) (unpublished 

memorandum). We directed that “Father could move for return of security 

upon Child’s return to the United States with Father on September 7, 2022.” 

Id. at *3. Thereafter,

Father posted a $50,000.00 bond in the [trial] court. On July 20, 

2022, this Court removed the stay of the April 13, 2022 order and 

reiterated that Father could move for return of security upon 

Child’s return to the United States with Father on September 7, 

2022.

On September 20, 2022, Father filed an application in this Court 

seeking return of security. Father averred that Child and Father 

returned to the United States on September 7, 2022. Mother did 

not file an answer to Father’s application. On October 31, 2022, 

this Court entered an order directing return of all security posted 

by Father.

Id.
J-A12003-23

- 7 -

in Italy. . . .” Amended Answer and Counterclaim, 10/28/22, at ¶ 8(a) 

(emphasis in original).

The court scheduled a “protracted hearing” on the above-described 

petitions for November 22, 2022.

4

 See Order, 11/7/22. Mother timely filed 

a pre-trial statement, but Father did not file the same. Critically, this hearing 

again occurred off-the-record, although Mother asserts that it was conducted 

via Zoom. See Mother’s Brief at 14 (unpaginated). To be clear, no transcript 

or record of these proceedings or the testimony, if any, offered therein is

present in the certified record. 

By order dated and entered on November 22, 2022, the trial court 

dismissed Father’s emergency contempt petition as moot. Further, the court

denied the parties’ cross-petitions to modify the final order. Moreover, the 

court granted Father’s new request to travel with Child to Italy in December 

of 2022. The order provided that Child’s “passport may be retrieved from the 

[c]ourt on Monday, December 19, 2022 by a [c]ourt [o]rder. Thereafter, said 

passport shall be returned to the [c]ourt upon completion of the trip. The 

parties shall have the passport of [Child] renewed before February 14, 2023.” 

Order, 11/22/22, at ¶ 5.

It is important to note that, on the same date the trial court issued the 

subject order, this Court filed its memorandum in Mother’s appeal at 1012 

____________________________________________

4 Although the order listed the hearing as a “protracted hearing,” it scheduled 

the hearing to commence at 1:00 p.m. for “1 hour.” Order, 11/7/22.
J-A12003-23

- 8 -

EDA 2022, wherein we ordered that the appeal be dismissed as moot. See 

Cassani, supra. The panel concluded, “Mother’s arguments boil down to the 

thesis that the [trial c]ourt’s order was an abuse of discretion because Father 

intended to abscond to Italy with Child and never return. Father, however, 

returned from Italy to the United States with Child on September 7, 2022, the 

date specified in the [final] order.” Id.

On November 23, 2022, Mother, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s November 22, 2022 order, along with a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. On December 6, 2022, Mother 

filed in the trial court a motion to stay the subject order, which the court 

granted by order entered on December 13, 2022. Specifically, the order 

provided, “the order of November 22, 2022 is stayed pending disposition of 

the appeal [before the Superior Court] docketed at no. 2961 EDA 2022 [the 

instant appeal].” See Order, 12/13/22.

On December 19, 2022, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), wherein it asked this Court to vacate the subject order and 

remand the case on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701 (Effect of Appeal Generally).

On appeal, Mother raises eight issues for review, as follows.

5

I. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by 

ignoring Pa.R.A.P. 1701, which states, inter alia, “Except as 

____________________________________________

5 We have re-ordered Mother’s issues in her statement of questions involved 

in her brief for ease of disposition.
J-A12003-23

- 9 -

otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an appeal is taken 

or review of a quasi-judicial order is sought, the trial court 

or other government unit may no longer proceed further in 

the matter,” whereas in this case, the court to deny the fact 

that the custody matters under docket no. 1012 EDA 2022 

have not been relinquished/remitted and the record was 

scheduled to be remitted on December 22, 2022, and still

proceeded with the November 22, 2022 hearing?

II. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by 

failing to consider the alternative [to Child going to Italy in 

December of 2022]: the visits with the paternal relatives to 

visit Child in the United States, given Mother’s concern of 

parental abduction to Italy, and not considering Mother’s 

New Year’s Eve 2022 and New Year’s Day 2023 [custodial 

award and her planned] celebration with Child?

III. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by 

ignoring the fact that Father failed to submit the required 

pretrial statement but still used exhibits during the hearing 

in order to justify his suggested travel to Italy in December 

2022?

IV. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by 

ignoring any and all requests for relief in the amended 

answers with counterclaim and pretrial statement as 

requested relief was in Child’s best interest pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)?

V. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by 

issuing the subject order which was contrary to the record 

and testimony of the parties at the Zoom hearing and 

contrary to the best interest of Child pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)?

VI. Has the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by not 

allowing ample time between the conference scheduled on 

November 7, 2022, and a one-hour “protracted hearing” via 

Zoom call scheduled on November 22, 2022 to allow Mother 

to adequately prepare and subpoena appropriate witnesses 

for the hearing?

VII. Has the trial court committed an error of law and/or abuse 

of discretion by providing that it “resolved any outstanding 
J-A12003-23

- 10 -

issues,” which contradicts the court’s statements at the 

hearing of taking under advisement requests and changes 

to custody order provisions requested in Mother’s 

counterclaim and pretrial statement?

VIII. Has the trial court violated Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b)(2) by 

ignoring Mother’s raised concerns of Child’s risk of 

international abduction?

Mother’s Brief at 1-2 (unpaginated) (cleaned up).

6

 

In her first issue, Mother, like the trial court, requests that this Court 

vacate the subject order and remand the case. Specifically, she asserts that

by appealing the final order to this Court, docketed at 1012 EDA 2022, the 

trial court was divested of original jurisdiction to issue the subject order. 

Further, Mother asserts that, inasmuch as the record at 1012 EDA 2022 was 

not remanded, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the final order had not 

revested on November 22, 2022. Id. at 7-8 (unpaginated). We disagree.

It is well-settled that the “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can never

be waived; it may be raised at any stage in the proceedings by the parties

or by a court on its own motion.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 230 A.3d 1124, 

1126 (Pa. Super. 2020) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Further,

____________________________________________

6 With respect to Mother’s eighth issue, she did not assert an error regarding 

it in her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Therefore, 

Mother’s eighth issue is waived. See In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 

(Pa. Super. 2017) (citing City of Philadelphia v. Lerner, 151 A.3d 1020, 

1024 (Pa. 2016)) (“With respect to issues not included in a concise statement,

our Supreme Court has instructed that this Court has no discretion in choosing

whether to find waiver. Waiver is mandatory, and this Court may not craft ad

hoc exceptions or engage in selective enforcement.”).
J-A12003-23

- 11 -

“[j]urisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review

is de novo, and the scope of review plenary.” Id. (citation omitted).

This Court has explained:

Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(a), “the

filing of a notice of appeal divests the trial court of

jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 611 Pa. 437, 27 A.3d

994, 1005 (Pa. 2011). Except in situations not applicable

here, Rule 1701(a) dictates that, “after an appeal is taken . . . the

trial court . . . may no longer proceed further in the

matter.” Pa.R.A.P. 1701.

. . .

A Superior Court decision and order of remand with instructions, 

. . . does not automatically and immediately revest a trial court 

with jurisdiction, nothwithstanding this Court’s use of the phrase 

“jurisdiction relinquished” in the decision. Procedurally, our 

decisions are not necessarily the final word on appeal. Thus, our 

phraseology is actually shorthand for, “jurisdiction relinquished, if 

and when remand becomes appropriate by an operation of law.”

Regarding the timing of a remand to a lower court, the appellate 

rules provide, “Remand is stayed until disposition of: (1) an 

application for reargument; (2) any other application affecting the 

order; or (3) a petition for allowance of appeal from the order. 

The court possessed of the record shall remand 30 days after 

either the entry of a final order or the disposition of all 

post-decision applications, whichever is later.” Pa.R.A.P. 2572(b).

We have construed Appellate Rule 2572 as setting the earliest

possible date for remanding a record to the trial court. “Quite

simply, the prothonotary may remand the record any time after

thirty days have passed from the Superior Court's

judgment.” Commonwealth v. Sisneros, 692 A.2d 1105, 1109

(Pa. Super. 1997).

Harris, 230 A.3d at 1126-1127 (emphasis in original). 

Instantly, it is undisputed that this Court filed its memorandum in 1012 

EDA 2022 on November 22, 2022, the same date that the trial court held the 
J-A12003-23

- 12 -

Zoom hearing and issued the subject order. As such, the record had not been 

remanded on November 22, 2022. See Harris, supra; see also Pa.R.A.P. 

2572. However, we disagree that the prior appeal divested the trial court of 

jurisdiction with respect to the subject order. 

The Rule provides, in relevant part:

Rule 1701. Effect of Appeal Generally

(a) General rule.-- Except as otherwise prescribed by these

rules, after an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is

sought, the trial court or other government unit may no longer

proceed further in the matter.

. . .

(c) Limited to matters in dispute.-- Where only a particular

item, claim, or assessment adjudged in the matter is

involved in an appeal, or in a petition for review proceeding

relating to a quasijudicial order, the appeal or petition for review

proceeding shall operate to prevent the trial court or other

government unit from proceeding further with only such

item, claim, or assessment, unless otherwise ordered by the trial

court or other government unit or by the appellate court or a judge

thereof as necessary to preserve the rights of the appellant.

. . .

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a), (c) (emphasis added).

As stated above, the panel in Mother’s appeal at 1012 EDA 2022 

determined that the sole matter in dispute was whether the trial court abused 

its discretion by permitting Father to travel to Italy with Child from August 24, 

2022, to September 7, 2022, based on her allegation that Father intended to 

abscond to Italy with Child and never return. See Cassani, supra. Because 
J-A12003-23

- 13 -

Father had returned from Italy to the United States with Child on September 

7, 2022, the panel dismissed that appeal as moot. Id. 

However, on November 22, 2022, the trial court needed to resolve 

Father’s new proposal to travel with Child to Italy again in December of 2022. 

In addition, the trial court needed to resolve, inter alia, the parties’ dispute 

regarding which custody schedule was best for Child, alternating between 

Mother and Father on a 2-2-3 basis or on weekly basis. Therefore, the issues 

before the trial court were different than those on appeal at 1012 EDA 2022,

and the court was not divested of jurisdiction to rule on them. We conclude 

Mother’s first claim is without merit.

7

Having concluded that the trial court was not divested of jurisdiction in 

the underlying matter, we now turn to Mother’s substantive claims. In her 

second issue, Mother asks this Court to consider whether the trial court abused 

its discretion by granting Father’s proposed trip to Italy with Child again in 

December of 2022, bearing in mind her allegation that he still planned to 

abscond with Child. In her third issue, Mother requests that we review 

whether the court abused its discretion by permitting Father to introduce 

exhibits in support of his proposed trip during the November 22, 2022 hearing. 

____________________________________________

7

It is important to note that, unlike the procedural posture in Mother’s appeal 

at 1012 EDA 2022, the trial court stayed the subject order on December 13, 

2022, and there is no evidence in the record that Father’s proposed trip to 

Italy with Child in December of 2022 occurred. Therefore, the instant appeal 

is not moot.
J-A12003-23

- 14 -

In her fourth and fifth issues, Mother requests that we review whether the 

court abused its discretion in denying her request for Child’s custody schedule 

to alternate on a 2-2-3-day basis. In her sixth and seventh issues, Mother

questions whether the court permitted her to present her witnesses in support 

of her allegations. 

Generally, these claims implicate the trial court’s November 22, 2022 

order, which concerned various aspects of the parties’ custody of Child. Our 

scope and standard of review in child custody matters is well-established.

[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.
J-A12003-23

- 15 -

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). 

As the foregoing precedent makes clear, our principal responsibility in 

the context of custody matters is to ensure that the trial court’s findings and 

rulings are supported by competent evidence. Id. Our ability to do so, 

however, is largely dependent upon the state of the certified record. Instantly, 

the incomplete nature of the certified record hamstrings our ability to conduct 

our mandated review. Specifically, the November 22, 2022 hearing, which 

immediately preceded the trial court’s entry of the underlying order in this 

appeal, was conducted as an off-the-record video conference. As detailed 

above, we discern that no record of these proceedings, or the evidence and 

testimony adduced therein, was created by the trial court.

Because the subject hearing was inexplicably conducted off the record, 

we are unable adequately to review Mother’s second through seventh issues 

on appeal. Upon thorough review of Mother’s arguments, the parties’ 

pleadings, and the court’s orders in the certified record, there is no indication 

that the trial court held an appropriate evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, we 

cannot assess the findings of the trial court to ensure that its determinations 

are supported by competent evidence. 
J-A12003-23

- 16 -

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926(a) provides that, “[i]f 

any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred 

in the trial court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court 

after notice to the parties and opportunity for objection, and the record made 

to conform to the truth.” Pa.R.A.P. 1926(a). In past instances, this Court has 

relied upon Rule 1926 to vacate and remand for further proceedings due to 

the incompleteness of records created in the court below. See Supko v. 

Monoskey, 461 A.2d 253, 257-258 (Pa. Super. 1983) (vacating a purported 

custody order and remanding for further proceedings where an “incomplete” 

record hampered this Court’s ability to conduct meaningful appellate review).

Accordingly, we vacate the November 22, 2022 custody order and 

remand the case to the trial court to schedule promptly a full evidentiary

hearing of the parties’ cross-petitions to modify. On remand, we direct that 

the trial court prohibit Father from international travel with Child prior to the 

full evidentiary hearing and the court’s new custody order arising therefrom.8

Order vacated. Appellant’s Application for Relief denied as moot. Case 

remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judge McLaughlin joins this Memorandum.

Judge Nichols files a Dissenting Memorandum.

____________________________________________

8 Mother filed pro se an application requesting that this Court “take into 

consideration that transcripts are unavailable” for review. Application for 

Relief, 5/12/23, at 1. Based on this disposition, Mother’s application is moot.
J-A12003-23

- 17 -

Date: 10/12/2023