J-A07045-17

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

C.F. & B.F.

 Appellants

 v.

L.C., E.G.

 Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1713 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County,

Civil Division at No(s): 12752 CD 2015

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2017

C.F. and B.F. (Maternal Grandparents) appeal from the order entered 

on October 25, 2016, which sustained preliminary objections filed by E.G. 

We quash this appeal.

N.C. (Mother) and F.C. (Father) were the biological parents of two 

children, M.C. (born in 2004) and N.C. (born in 2011) (collectively, 

Children). Mother died in 2012. After Mother’s death, Father and E.G. 

began dating and eventually came to live together. Father died on 

December 18, 2015. On the same day, Maternal Grandparents filed a 

petition for emergency custody of Children, which was granted. On 

December 21, 2015, L.C. (Paternal Grandmother) filed a petition for 

emergency custody. By agreement, the December 18, 2015 order was 
J-A07045-17

- 2 -

vacated and Maternal Grandparents and Paternal Grandmother were 

provided equal shared legal and physical custody.

On January 22, 2016, E.G. filed a petition for leave to intervene, 

arguing that she stood in loco parentis to Children. On February 12, 2016, 

Maternal Grandparents filed a complaint for custody requesting primary 

physical custody of Children. 

On April 4, 2016, the trial court granted E.G. permission to intervene, 

and on April 20, 2016, E.G. filed preliminary objections to Maternal 

Grandparents’ complaint. On April 28, 2016, Maternal Grandparents filed an 

amended complaint for custody. In the amended complaint, Maternal 

Grandparents contended they have standing to seek primary physical and 

legal custody of Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(2).1 They also 

averred they have standing to seek partial physical custody of Children 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325(1).2

E.G. again filed preliminary objections. Specifically, she argued that 

Maternal Grandparents did not have standing to pursue custody pursuant to 

23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(2) because they did not stand in loco parentis to Children. 

The trial court held a hearing on the preliminary objections, and on October 

 

1 That statute provides as follows. “The following individuals may file an 

action under this chapter for any form of physical custody or legal custody ... 

(2) A person who stands in loco parentis to the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(2).

2 That statute provides that grandparents may file for partial physical 

custody or supervised physical custody “where the parent of the child is 

deceased.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325(1).
J-A07045-17

- 3 -

25, 2016, the trial court entered an order sustaining E.G.’s preliminary 

objections, concluding that Maternal Grandparents did not stand in loco 

parentis to Children and therefore could not pursue primary physical and 

legal custody pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(2). 

Maternal Grandparents timely filed a notice of appeal, and both 

Maternal Grandparents and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Before we reach the issues presented by Maternal Grandparents on 

appeal, we consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.3 It is 

well-settled that this Court has jurisdiction over final orders. The definition 

of a final order is provided in Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. “Rule 341 is fundamental to the exercise of jurisdiction by this 

court.” Prelude, Inc. v. Jorcyk, 695 A.2d 422, 424 (Pa. Super. 1997) (en 

banc). Rule 341 provides in relevant part as follows:

(b) Definition of final order.--A final order is any order that:

(1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; or

(2) RESCINDED

(3) is entered as a final order pursuant to paragraph (c) 

of this rule.

(c) Determination of finality.--When more than one claim 

for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, 

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or when multiple 

parties are involved, the trial court or other government unit 

may enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of 

the claims and parties only upon an express determination that 

an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire 

 

3

Paternal Grandmother and E.G. argue that this appeal should be quashed.
J-A07045-17

- 4 -

case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the 

absence of such a determination and entry of a final order, any 

order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all 

the claims and parties shall not constitute a final order.

Pa.R.A.P. 341. See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 742 (“The Superior Court shall have 

exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts 

of common pleas....”). 

Instantly, the trial court did not include the language required to 

satisfy paragraph (c); so this order is only appealable as a final order if it 

disposes of all claims and all parties. “‘[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.’” L.J.C. v. A.W., __ A.3d __, 2017 WL 1376872, at *2 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (quoting G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. Super. 1996)).

In L.J.C., this Court considered an analogous situation. In that case, 

the mother had primary physical custody of her four children, the 

grandfather had partial physical custody, and they shared legal custody. 

The father of two of the children filed a petition for modification of custody 

seeking primary physical custody of one of his children. The grandfather 

filed a petition for modification of custody where he requested primary 

physical custody of all four children. The mother argued that the 

grandfather lacked standing to pursue primary custody of the children. The 
J-A07045-17

- 5 -

trial court agreed with the mother, and entered an order consistent with that 

determination. The grandfather filed an appeal to this Court.

On appeal, this Court concluded that the trial court’s order was not a 

final order. It reasoned as follows.

At the time the trial court entered this order, the petition 

to modify custody filed by [the father] remained pending and 

was unaddressed by the court’s directive. In addition, although 

the court concluded that [the g]randfather could not seek 

primary physical custody of the [g]randchildren, it did not 

indicate that it was denying or dismissing [the g]randfather’s 

petition to modify. The court concluded that [the g]randfather 

retains the ability to seek partial physical custody, and it is not 

clear if [the g]randfather intends to pursue an expanded award 

of partial physical custody in lieu of primary physical custody. 

Thus, we conclude that the court has not completed its hearings 

on the merits, and that the [] order was not intended to 

completely resolve the custody claims pending between the 

parties.

Id. This Court went on to conclude that the order was not appealable 

pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.4Id. Specifically, the trial court 

concluded that the grandfather’s “claim will not be irreparably lost if we 

postpone review of this matter until the entry of a final order.” Id. The 

grandfather “retained the right to seek partial physical custody, [and] will be 

able to lodge an appeal once a final order is entered [where] he may 

challenge the trial court’s determination that he lacks standing[.]” Id.

 

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 313 (providing that an appeal may be taken as of right from 

a collateral order where the order is “separable from and collateral to the 

main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied 

review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until 

final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost”).
J-A07045-17

- 6 -

Instantly, it is apparent that the order in this case was not “intended 

by the court to constitute a complete resolution of the custody claims 

pending between the parties.” Id. Maternal Grandparents are still parties to 

the action and can pursue their claim for partial physical custody. Once the 

trial court resolves all of the custody matters among E.G., Paternal 

Grandmother, and Maternal Grandparents, any party, including Maternal 

Grandparents, may appeal. At that juncture, it would be appropriate for this 

Court to review the trial court’s order with respect to Maternal Grandparents’ 

standing should they choose to appeal.

Because the order appealed from is neither a final order nor a 

collateral order, we quash this appeal.5

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/24/2017

 

5 Moreover, we observe that this order does not satisfy the requirements for 

being an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311.