Court Opinion

ID: 9890255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:11:28.827949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:38.291999
License: Public Domain

J-A12003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  EMANUELE CASSANI                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  OLGA SOFIA KAMIAK                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   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

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

                                      -2-
J-A12003-23

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

                                      -3-
J-A12003-23

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.

                                           -4-
J-A12003-23

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)

                                           -5-
J-A12003-23

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.

                                           -6-
J-A12003-23

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.

                                           -7-
J-A12003-23

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.

                                           -8-
J-A12003-23

            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

                                     -9-
J-A12003-23

              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.”).

                                          - 10 -
J-A12003-23

“[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

                                    - 11 -
J-A12003-23

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

                                     - 12 -
J-A12003-23

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.

                                          - 13 -
J-A12003-23

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.

                                     - 14 -
J-A12003-23

      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.

                                     - 15 -
J-A12003-23

       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.

                                          - 16 -
J-A12003-23

Date: 10/12/2023

                   - 17 -