J-A12001-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

L.S., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

A.V.S.,

Appellant No. 3213 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order September 21, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Family Court at No(s): 0C0174676

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016

A.V.S. (Mother) appeals pro se from the September 21, 2015 order 

that, after a hearing, suspended her “supervised physical custody 

(visitation)” of C.S.S. (Child), born in September of 2001, “until further 

order of the court.” Order, 9/21/15, at 1. Because we determine that the 

order appealed from is interlocutory, and not final, we quash this appeal. 

The almost non-existent certified record in this case appears to show 

that Mother has been seeking custody of Child since March of 2006. The 

certified record only contains the list of docket entries, the September 21, 

2015 order from which this appeal stems, and the trial court’s memorandum 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12001-16

- 2 -

in lieu of an opinion, dated November 3, 2015, which states in its entirety 

that: 

The September 21, 2015[, o]rder that Appellant [Mother] 

seeks to appeal cannot be appealed because it is an interim 

order. It is not a permanent order because the court has 

indicated that [Mother’s] custody is suspended until further order 

of the court. Furthermore, in [Mother’s] [s]tatement of [e]rrors, 

[Mother] failed to present this court with an articulable clear and 

concise statement of matters filed on appeal. 

Trial Court’s Memorandum in Lieu of Opinion, 11/3/15. 

When confronted with an order that does not appear to be final, this 

Court is guided by the following excerpt from Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d 

1023 (Pa. Super. 2002), that states:

Generally, “a custody order will be considered final and 

appealable only after the trial court has completed its hearings 

on the merits and the resultant order resolves the pending 

custody claims between the parties.” G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa. 

Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714, 715 (Pa. Super. 1996) (quashing 

appeal as interlocutory where order allowing father partial 

custody pending completion of hearings contemplated additional 

hearing on ultimate issues in the case). In the context of finality 

of orders, we recognize the uniqueness of custody orders 

compared to orders in other civil actions. Id. 670 at 718 n.9. 

Child custody orders are temporary in nature and 

always subject to change if new circumstances affect 

the welfare of a child. The Commonwealth has a 

duty of paramount importance, to protect the child's 

best interests and welfare. To that end, it may 

always entertain an application for modification and 

adjustment of custodial rights.

Id. (citations omitted). 

Id. at 1025. 
J-A12001-16

- 3 -

Subsequent to this statement by the Kassam Court, the Kassam

opinion sets forth an extensive discussion contained in the G.B. decision, 

which reviews a number of previously decided cases, and concludes that “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.” Kassam, 811 A.2d at 1027 (quoting 

G.B., 670 A.2d at 721 (emphasis omitted)). 

Here, it is evident from the court’s statement in its memorandum 

opinion that it did not intend the September 21, 2015 order to be a final 

order that disposes of all claims and of all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341. More 

importantly, the language of the order contemplates the court’s expectation 

that additional proceedings will occur. Therefore, the custody order at issue 

does not meet the second prong of the test expressed in Kassam. 

Accordingly, we are compelled to quash this appeal as interlocutory.

Appeal quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2016