J-A26034-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

B.J.

v.

D.M.

v.

J.L. & I.L. 

Appellants/Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 565 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County Civil Division at No(s): 

2015-648

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and RANSOM, J.

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2017

Appellants/Intervenors, J.L. and I.L. (“Grandparents”), appeal from the 

order entered March 21, 2017, granting the motion for contempt filed by 

Appellee, B.J., and further ordering that Grandparents could purge their

contempt by paying all legal fees incurred by Appellee pertaining to his petition 

for contempt and a petition for removal of the guardian ad litem (“GAL”). We 

reverse.

The record reveals that Appellee commenced this underlying custody 

action in June 2015, seeking primary physical and sole legal custody of his 

step-daughter, K.M. (“Child”), born in February 2001. See Complaint for 
J-A26034-17

- 2 -

Primary Custody Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324. Child’s mother passed 

away in June of 2015, and Child had little or no contact with, D.M., her 

biological father. Id. In June 2015, Child’s maternal grandparents filed a 

petition to intervene. See Petition to Intervene in the Custody Action.

Following a hearing in June 2015, temporary physical and legal custody 

were given to Appellee; D.M. was given liberal visitation; and Grandparents

were given temporary custody two days per week and visitation as agreed 

upon by the parties. See Order, 6/25/15. In April of 2016, Grandparents

were given temporary physical custody of Child and joint legal custody along 

with D.M. See Order, 4/21/16. The court further ordered that Grandparents

were to provided Appellee with information regarding Child’s health, welfare, 

education, and extra-curricular activities as they deemed appropriate. Id. 

Appellee was not given visitation rights.

In September 2016, Appellee filed an Emergency Petition for Special 

Relief seeking to have Child returned to Pennsylvania and for the court to hold 

Grandparents in contempt for failing to follow the court’s orders and not 

notifying parties of Child’s relocation to Oregon.

1

 See Motion, 9/6/16. 

Grandparents then filed a Motion to remove the GAL, alleging that GAL was 

not acting in the child’s best interest and had not contacted Child in five 

months. See Motion, 9/26/16. In November 2016, GAL filed a memorandum 

____________________________________________

1 We note, that although D.M. agreed to Child’s relocation, Appellee did not 

include natural father in its petition and thus, D.M. was not held in contempt 

and is merely a party in the underlying custody action.
J-A26034-17

- 3 -

requesting a contempt hearing due to Grandparents’ lack of cooperation and 

asked that the court order that Child be returned to Pennsylvania. Hearings 

were held on Appellee’s motions and GAL’s memorandum on November 29, 

2016, and on February 28, 2017. Following the hearings, the court issued an 

order permitting GAL to withdraw upon appointment of a new GAL. See 

Order, 3/1/17. Subsequently, the court found Grandparents in contempt for 

allowing Child to move to the state of Oregon without notification and approval 

of the court or GAL and for not informing the court or GAL of Child’s visit 

during the 2016 Christmas holiday. See Order, 3/3/17; see also Amended 

Order, 3/21/17.

In April 2017, Grandparents filed a motion for reconsideration that was 

denied by the trial court. Grandparents timely filed a notice of appeal and 

court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a 

responsive opinion.

On appeal, Grandparents raise the following issues for our review:

I. Whether, where there was no specific court order, the lower 

court’s finding of [Grandparents] in contempt was against 

the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

II. Whether, where the [Grandparents] acted without wrongful 

intent, the lower court’s finding of [Grandparents] in 

contempt was against the weight and sufficiency of the 

evidence.

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

Grandparents contend that the trial court abused its discretion, as they 

are not in violation of a specific court order prohibiting relocation. Further, 
J-A26034-17

- 4 -

Grandparents assert that any ambiguity in the court’s directive regarding 

where Child should attend school must be resolved in their favor. Thus, 

according to Grandparents they may not be held in contempt. Appellant’s 

Brief at 10, 12-15. Following a review of the record, we agree. 

This Court has explained our standard of review for a civil contempt 

order as follows:

When considering an appeal from an Order holding a party in 

contempt for failure to comply with a court Order, our scope of 

review is narrow: we will reverse only upon a showing the court 

abused its discretion. The court abuses its discretion if it 

misapplies the law or exercises it discretion in a manner lacking 

reason. 

Harcar v. Harcar 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Furthermore, 

To be punished for contempt, a party must not only have violated

a court order, but that order must have been “definite, clear, and 

specific-leaving no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the 

contemnor of the prohibited conduct.”

Because the order forming the basis for civil contempt must 

be strictly construed, any ambiguities or omissions in the 

order must be construed in favor of the defendant. In such 

cases, a contradictory order or an order whose specific 

terms have not been violated will not serve as the basis for 

a finding of contempt.

To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must prove 

[by a preponderance of the evidence] certain distinct elements: 

(1) that the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree 

which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting 

the contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) that the 

contemnor acted with wrongful intent. A person may not be held 

in contempt of court for failing to obey an order that is too vague 

or that cannot be enforced.
J-A26034-17

- 5 -

Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 488-489 (Pa. Super. 2001) (emphasis 

in original).2

Here, the trial court acknowledged that there is not a court order 

directing that Child remain in Pennsylvania. Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/17, at 

3. Nevertheless, the court suggests that Grandparents violated its directive 

that Child was to attend Holy Cross High School for the 2016-2017 school 

year. Id. The trial court fails to identify where in the record this directive 

was made, and our review discloses no directive. To the contrary, the only 

court order pertaining to Child’s school attendance was for the 2015-2016 

school year. See Order, 9/29/15. Grandparents moved Child during the 

summer of 2016, and thereafter, Child was enrolled in school in Oregon for 

the 2016-2017 school year. While it may have been the court’s intent that 

the child attend Holy Cross High School for the 2016-2107 academic year, this 

intent was not prescribed in a court order. The resulting ambiguity must be 

resolved in Grandparents’ favor. Lachat, 759 A.2d at 489. Thus, the first 

____________________________________________

2

In limited circumstances, this Court has affirmed a contempt finding when 

there is not a formal order entered into the docket. See, e.g., In re 

Contempt of Cullen, 849 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2004) (indicating that a 

personal phone call by the court and a hand-delivered letter specifying the 

date and time to appear at a hearing constitutes an “order”); In re James, 

470 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 1984) (indicating that an-over-the phone agreement 

to appear in court at a certain time constitutes an “order”); Commonwealth 

v. Worthy, 512 A.2d 39 (Pa. Super. 1986) (indicating that judge’s direction 

at trial to continue questioning a witness instead of belaboring points already 

established constitutes an “order”). These cases are inapposite. 
J-A26034-17

- 6 -

element for a finding of contempt is not met, as Grandparents did not have 

notice of a specific order that they allegedly violated. Id.

As this conclusion is dispositive, we need not address the merits of 

Grandparents’ second issue.3 Accordingly, we reverse.

Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2017

____________________________________________

3 Appellee suggests that Grandparents’ failure to notify him or the court of 

Child’s relocation suggests wrongful intent. As Appellee does not have custody 

rights, he is not entitled to notice. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(c). Nevertheless, 

Grandparents were required to confirm relocation with the court. 23 Pa.C.S.§ 

5337(e). Grandparents’ failure to notify the court is troublesome. However, 

in accordance with the statute, we note that all parties with custody rights 

agreed to Child’s relocation. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(1).