J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHAD BATTERMAN 

Appellant

v.

SILVIA SANTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 967 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 16, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No: 2019-06877

CHAD BATTERMAN 

Appellant

v.

SILVIA SANTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 968 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 16, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No: 2019-06877

CHAD BATTERMAN 

Appellant

v.

SILVIA SANTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 969 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No: 2019-06877
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 2 -

CHAD BATTERMAN 

Appellant

v.

SILVIA SANTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1194 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No: 2019-06877

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant, Chad Batterman (Father), pro 

se challenges four orders issued in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery 

County denying his petitions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this 

protracted, tortuous custody battle between Father and Appellee, Silvia Santo 

(Mother), involving the couple’s minor children. With respect to all four 

orders, Father contends that the trial court committed error of law in denying 

his IFP petitions based on its conclusion that Father failed to demonstrate his 

inability to obtain funds for transcripts and fees related to his appeals.1 With 

____________________________________________

1 An order denying IFP status is a final, appealable order. See Grant v. 

Blaine, 868 A.2d 400, 402 (Pa. 2005). 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 3 -

regard to two of the orders, he also argues that the trial court’s failure to 

conduct a hearing deprived him of due process. Following review, we affirm.

In a July 27, 2022 memorandum disposing of another of Father’s 

appeals from an order denying an IFP petition, a panel of this Court provided 

the following factual background:

Father and [Mother] were married in November 2014 and 

separated in November 2017. Mother and Father are the parents 

of C.B. and D.B. (Children), [dates of birth, 10/20/15 and 

10/10/17], respectively. On February 12, 2018, the court entered 

an order granting the parties shared legal custody of the Children, 

granting Mother primary physical custody, and granting Father 

partial physical custody (one day a week and every other 

weekend). See Order, 2/12/18. On May 3, 2019, the trial court 

entered a custody order granting Mother sole legal custody and 

primary physical custody of the Children and granting Father 

partial physical custody of the Children. See Order, 5/3/19. Since 

2017, this custody matter has accumulated over 370 docket 

entries, primarily from Father’s efforts to obtain contempt orders 

against Mother.4

4 Despite words of caution and criticism by the Honorable Melissa S. 

Sterling, Father has continued his litigious pursuit. Judge Sterling 

stated:

Dozens of emergency petitions, petitions for contempt, 

reconsideration motions, appeals and numerous filings against 

third parties including children’s physicians, local police, and 

maternal grandparents seeking discovery regarding the children, 

have been filed with this court and the Pennsylvania Superior 

Court and have been heard before numerous judges. Despite 

numerous warnings and threats of sanctions being imposed 

against him, Father continues to file and seeks contempt ruling 

after contempt ruling, hoping to increase his custody time while 

reducing Mother’s. Father’s continued abuse and misuse of the 

court system in his attempts to gain the upper hand cannot be 

ignored. We do not make our decision today lightly, particularly 

given the four-year, non-stop battle over these small children 

and the continued abuse of court time and resources. It appears 

to us that their spiteful litigation has almost become a full-time 

job for these parents. We know Father seeks an equal parenting 

role, but we do not believe that would be the correct decision at 

this time. These parents must learn to co-parent as peacefully 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 4 -

as they possibly can. Once they reach that state of mind–that 

their children are more important than their battles–we are 

hopeful that they will be able to jointly make the right decisions 

for the Children. But for now, one parent must have the ability 

to make final decisions on critical issues such as health and 

education and, having heard 5 days of testimony, reviewed both 

parties’ exhibits and considered all the evidence before us, we 

believe the order we have issued today is the fairest we can 

provide.

Findings of Fact, 7/16/21, at 2-5, 9, 12.

Batterman v. Santo, No. 145 EDA 2022, unpublished memorandum at 1-3 

(Pa. Super. filed July 27, 2022) (brackets, ellipses, and some footnotes 

omitted).2

As stated, the instant appeals relate to four different orders denying 

Father’s petitions for IFP status. At docket No. 967 EDA 2022, Father’s appeal 

stems from the March 16, 2022 order denying a March 9, 2022 IFP petition 

seeking waiver of fees relating to the transcript of a March 2, 2022 hearing 

“address[ing] issues raised in 11 custody and contempt petitions” before the 

Honorable Henry S. Hilles, III. Trial Court Opinion, 5/9/22, at 1-2. At docket 

No. 968 EDA 2022, Father’s appeal involves the March 16, 2022 order denying 

____________________________________________

2 The panel explained that the trial court erred by basing its denial of Father’s 

December 16, 2021 IFP petition simply on the fact “[Father] has not 

persuaded the court that he is without the necessary resources.” See Order, 

12/17/21. The panel determined that the failure to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing required reversal and remand for a hearing. Batterman, supra, at 

8-9. By contrast, the trial court in the instant action did hold a hearing on 

March 11, 2022 and based its denials not only on its review of Father’s 

petitions but also on testimony and evidence presented at the March 11 

hearing. 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 5 -

a second March 9, 2022 IFP petition seeking waiver of fees for the transcript 

of an October 7, 2021 hearing on Father’s “Emergency Motion to Remove the 

Parties’ Children from Mother’s Residence until Proper Asbestos and Lead 

Testing Is Completed.” Id. at 2. At docket No. 969 EDA 2022, Father 

appealed the March 17, 2022 order denying his IPF petition filed that same 

day in which he requested waiver of fees for three separate appeals as well 

as a March 11, 2022 hearing involving Father’s “two, then-pending IFP 

Petitions.” Id.3 At docket No. 1194 EDA 2022, Father appealed the May 2, 

2022 order denying his April 29, 2022 IFP petition requesting waiver of fees 

for the transcript of an April 27, 2022 hearing. In all four appeals, Father 

argues trial court error for denying the petitions. In the appeals docketed at 

No. 969 EDA 2022 and No. 1194 EDA 2022, Father also argues that he was 

deprived of due process by virtue of the trial court’s failure to conduct a 

hearing. 

In D.R.M. v. N.K.M., 153 A.3d 348 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court 

reiterated that: 

“[I]n reviewing a trial court’s resolution of an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we reverse only if the court abused its 

discretion or committed an error of law.” Amrhein v. Amrhein,

903 A.2d 17, 19 (Pa. Super. 2006). An abuse of discretion is not 

merely an error in judgment but requires a finding of bias, 

partiality, prejudice, ill will, manifest unreasonableness, or 

misapplication of law. Commonwealth v. Tickel, 2 A.3d 1229,

1233 (Pa. Super. 2010). The trial court “has considerable 

____________________________________________

3 When appropriate, we shall refer to appeals from the two March 16, 2022 

orders and the March 17, 2022 order collectively as “the March appeals.”
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 6 -

discretion in determining whether a person is indigent for 

purposes of an application to proceed in forma pauperis.” 

pauperis.” Amrhein, supra at 20.

Id. at 350-51. 

In its July 27, 2022 memorandum opinion addressing Father’s appeal 

from a December 20, 2021 order denying IFP status, the panel correctly 

observed:

In determining IFP status, the trial court must satisfy itself of the 

truth of the averment of an inability to pay the costs of litigation, 

and if it believes the petitioner’s averments, there is no 

requirement that the court conduct an evidentiary hearing. 

Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1226 (Pa. Super. 

2008), citing Amrhein[, 903 A.2d at 19]. However, if the court 

disbelieves even some of the petitioner’s averments, an 

evidentiary hearing must be held. Amrhein, supra. See also 

Crosby Square Apartments v. Hanson, 666 A.2d 737 (Pa. 

Super. 1995)[.] Although the trial court has considerable 

discretion in determining whether a person is indigent for 

purposes of an IFP application, Amrhein, supra, in making that 

determination, the trial court must focus on whether the person 

can afford to pay and cannot reject allegations contained in an 

application without conducting a hearing. Cannon, supra; 

Crosby Square, supra.

Batterman, supra, at 7 (some citations omitted). 

Further: 

Pa.R.C.P. 240 (“Rule 240”) governs the filing of IFP Petitions 

generally and provides that if “the petition is denied, in whole or 

in part, the court shall briefly state its reasons.” Pa.R.C.P.

240(c)(3). This Court has instructed, if “the trial court is inclined 

to deny . . . IFP applications after conducting the appropriate 

evidentiary hearing(s), the trial court must place a brief statement 

of its reasons on the record and/or in its order(s).” Goldstein v.

Haband Co., 814 A.2d 1214, 1218 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

D.R.M., 153 A.3d at 351. 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 7 -

Here, the trial court conducted a hearing on March 11, 2022. As the 

court explained:

The court presided over a hearing on March 11, 2022 during which 

Father testified with respect to his financial situation and 

introduced exhibits into the record. The court ultimately 

concluded that Father had the financial resources to pay the 

various fees and denied the three IFP petitions in orders issued 

March 16, 2022 (two) and March 17, 2022. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/9/22, at 2. Not only did the court conduct the required 

evidentiary hearing, but also in its two orders issued on March 16, 2022, the 

court indicated its reason for denying Father’s petitions, stating, “[Father] has 

failed to demonstrate that he is unable to obtain funds to pay for the requested 

transcript.” Order, 3/16/22, at 1. In the order issued on March 17, 2022, the 

court indicated, “[Father] has failed to demonstrate that he is unable to obtain 

funds to pay for (1) the requested transcript and (2) the fees in connection 

with any appeal.” Order, 3/17/22, at 1. 

We find no abuse of discretion or error of law in the trial court’s orders 

challenged in the March appeals. Father filed petitions with information 

regarding his financial situation and presented testimony at the March 11, 

2022 hearing regarding his finances, along with exhibits that were admitted 

by the court. The court issued orders that properly included a brief statement 

as to why each petition was denied. In its opinion addressing the March 

appeals, the court further explained that

contrary to Father’s contention in the IFP affidavits, Father is not 

“unable to obtain funds from anyone, including [his] family and 

associates, to pay the costs of litigation.” Father clearly has 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 8 -

access to funds from his father to finance his everyday life 

including housing expenses, children’s activities and vacations. 

The court found Father to be wholly incredible in his self-serving 

testimony that his father is essentially willing to finance Father’s 

expenses except for the within filing fees. Father was unable to 

demonstrate that he is “unable to pay the fees and costs” as 

averred in his IFP affidavits. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/9/22, at 5 (emphasis in original; footnote and some 

capitalization omitted). 

Regarding the March appeals, the orders were entered after the court 

considered Father’s petitions and conducted a hearing on March 11, 2022. We 

reject Father’s contention that the trial court denied him due process by not 

conducting another hearing before issuing the March 17, 2022 order, one day 

after issuing its two March 16, 2022 orders and less than one week after 

conducting the March 11 hearing. Father has not even remotely suggested 

that his financial status changed between March 11, 2022 and the time the 

orders were issued on March 16, 2022, and he has failed to advance any 

legitimate argument that his status changed between March 16, 2022 and 

March 17, 2022 when it issued the order appealed from at docket 969 EDA 

2022. Finding no abuse of discretion or error of law with respect to the March 

appeals, we affirm the trial court’s orders entered on March 16, 2022 and the 

order entered on March 17, 2022. 

In the appeal docketed at No. 1194 EDA 2022, Father again asserts trial 

court error for denying an IFP petition, this time with regard to the trial court’s 

May 2, 2022 order denying Father’s April 29, 2022 IFP petition. In that 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 9 -

petition, Father requested waiver of fees for the transcript of an April 27, 2022 

hearing. We note that the third page of Father’s April 29, 2022 petition 

appears to be a photocopy of his two March 9 petitions as well as the March 

17 petition. However, Father’s handwritten notation in the March petitions 

claiming “arrears of at least $34,000 per the Philadelphia Family Court” is 

altered by writing the number “5” over the “4” so that he now suggests he 

has “arrears of at least $35,000 per the Philadelphia Family Court.” See IFP 

Petition, 4/29/22, at 3. In all other respects, Father’s representations in the 

April 29 petition are unchanged from those made in the March petitions. 

In its May 2, 2022 order denying the April 29, 2022 petition, the trial 

court explained, “The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is unable to 

obtain funds to pay for his transcript. The court presided over an evidentiary 

hearing with respect to Petitioner’s ability to pay on March 11, 2022 (in 

connection with a previous request to proceed in forma pauperis).” Trial Court 

Order, 5/2/22. 

We find no abuse of discretion or error of law on the part of the trial 

court in denying Father’s April 29, 2022 petition. Further, the court conducted 

an evidentiary hearing only seven weeks earlier and Father has not 

demonstrated, or even suggested, that yet another hearing would have 

produced any information to alter the trial court’s determination that Father 

failed to demonstrate an inability to pay for the transcript. As the trial court 

observed, 
J-S27003-22

J-S27004-22

- 10 -

[Father] did not aver that his financial condition had somehow 

changed in the intervening weeks; there was no basis for the court 

to schedule another hearing. Certainly, Thompson v. 

Thompson, 187 A.3d 259 (Pa. Super. 2018), does not stand for 

the proposition that the court must conduct IFP hearing on a 

regular basis if a serial filer continues to file IFP petitions.

[Father] was unable to demonstrate that he “is without financial 

resources” to pay the fees and costs as contemplated by 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/22, at 5.

Therefore, we reject Father’s assertion that he was denied due process 

as a result of the trial court’s failure to conduct an additional evidentiary 

hearing absent any evidence that Father’s financial condition changed in the 

intervening period. Father is not entitled to relief.

Orders affirmed. 

 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/2022