Court Opinion

ID: 9914894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 17:07:22.009505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:19.407686
License: Public Domain

J-A23006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  S.P.                                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  K.H. & B.H.                                  :   No. 772 MDA 2023
                                               :

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 11, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
                           2021-FC-001007-03

BEFORE:       LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED: JANUARY 3, 2024

         S.P. (Mother) appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of York County, finding her in civil contempt for violating prior

custody orders and imposing sanctions. After our review, we affirm on the

opinion authored by the Honorable N. Christopher Menges.

         The extensive procedural history of this matter is set forth in Judge

Menges’ opinion and will not be repeated herein.               See Trial Court

Memorandum Opinion, 6/21/23, at 1-9. In short, Mother and K.H (Father)

have been involved in custody proceedings since 2018. The original custody

order, entered on January 23, 2019, granted Mother and Father shared legal

and physical custody of A.E.P. (born December 2013) and R.J.H. (born April

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23006-23

2015) (collectively, Children).1 Father was subsequently charged with sexual

offenses,2 prompting Mother to file a petition to modify custody, seeking sole

legal and physical custody of Children. Paternal Grandfather3 filed a petition

to intervene seeking visitation with Children.4

       On April 11, 2022, the first day of the custody trial, the trial court issued

a temporary custody order5 granting Mother sole legal and physical custody

of Children and permitting Grandfather to have phone calls with Children at

least three times a month, as well as partial physical custody once a month

for ten hours. On June 3, 2022,6 the court entered an order granting Mother

sole legal and physical custody, and granting Grandfather phone calls with

____________________________________________

1 Although Father is the biological father of R.J.H, he is not the biological father

of A.E.P.

2 Father pleaded no contest to various sexual offenses and was sentenced to

a term of 4½ to 10 years’ incarceration.

3 Grandfather is the biological grandfather of R.J.H., but not A.E.P.

4 On May 12, 2021, Mother filed a petition seeking a temporary protection
from abuse (PFA) order, to protect Mother and Children, alleging Father
“seems to be escalating in terms of violence toward the kids and . . . [that
Father] has multiple charges of endangering children, child pornography, and
sexual assault against other minors.” Petition for Temporary Protection Order,
5/12/21, at 1.

5 The order also granted Father phone contact, via Zoom, with R.J.H. for 30

minutes once a week and also authorized him to write letters to R.J.H. See
Order, 4/11/22, at 3.

6 Although the custody trial was held on June 2, 2022, the order was received

by the York County Prothonotary and entered on the docket on June 3, 2022.
See Pa.R.C.P. 236.

                                           -2-
J-A23006-23

Children on the first, third, and fifth Monday of every month at 6 PM, and

partial physical custody on the second and fourth Saturdays of every month

from 9 AM to 7 PM. The court ordered all parties to sign up for the “Our Family

Wizard” app, a platform where families can communicate and share

information, including schedules, expenses, and messages. Finally, the court

ordered Mother to provide Father and Grandfather access to the Children’s

school portal for information and records.

       On September 6, 2022, the court held a review hearing, after which it

confirmed its June 3, 2022 order7 and included the following additional

provisions requiring Mother to: put Children’s schedule on Our Family Wizard;

provide Grandfather the password to Children’s school portal; and sign

releases so that Grandfather could speak to Children’s therapists.

       On April 10, 2023, Grandfather filed a contempt petition alleging Mother

had violated the court’s prior custody orders by

       refusing to comply with the phone call provisions outlined in the
       [o]rders[, . . .] speaking ill and derogator[ily] about Grandfather
       in front of [C]hildren[,] . . . refusing to communicate or furnish
       records to Grandfather about [C]hildren[,] including but not
       limited to school reports, conferences, pictures, mental health,
       and counseling[,] . . . not informing Grandfather of parent[-
       ]teacher conferences for [C]hildren[,] and refus[ing] to allow
       Grandfather to order school pictures of [C]hildren.”[8]

____________________________________________

7 At the hearing, the court scheduled a second review hearing given Mother’s

lack of compliance.

8 That same day, Mother filed a recusal motion, which the court denied.

                                           -3-
J-A23006-23

See Contempt Petition, 4/10/23, at 2-3. The court held a status/contempt

hearing on May 9, 2023, where Grandfather testified; Mother, who was pro

se, failed to testify, and also offered no witnesses or other evidence on her

behalf at the contempt hearing.9

       On May 11, 2023, the court entered an order finding Mother in contempt

for the following reasons:

       (1)    Failing to have Children make phone contact             with
              Grandfather regularly as set forth in court order;

       (2)    Failing to provide medical, educational, and other records
              for the Children to Grandfather;

       (3)    Failing to reimburse Grandfather $150.00 for half of the cost
              of the OurFamilyWizard app; and

       (4)    Failing to participate in OurFamilyWizard “in a meaningful
              way.”

Contempt Order, 5/11/23, at 2. The court also ordered that: (1) Grandfather

was entitled to additional custodial time on Saturday, June 17, 2023, from

9AM to 7 PM, representing “make-up time” for the failure to have his court-

ordered phone calls with Children; (2) Mother buy Children a non-smart cell

phone, at her own expense and within 20 days, so Children may call

Grandfather whenever they wish and vice versa; (3) Mother continue to pay

the monthly fee for Children’s cell phone; (4) Mother, at the very least, provide

Grandfather with school portals, passwords, etc., so he may access Children’s
____________________________________________

9 At the beginning of the hearing, Mother requested a continuance so she could

seek new counsel, which the court denied. Although Mother declined to testify
or call any witnesses in her own defense at the hearing, she did, in fact, cross-
examine Grandfather at the hearing.

                                           -4-
J-A23006-23

school information; and (5) Mother reimburse Grandfather $750.00 in

attorneys’ fees within 120 days. Id. at 2-4. Finally, the court reiterated that

all provisions in the court’s prior custody orders (dated April 7, 2022, June 3,

2022, and September 6, 2022) remained “in full force and effect and Mother

is to obey those.” Id. at 4.

       Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.10 She raises

the following issues for our review:

       (1) Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its
       finding of contempt.

       (2) Whether the trial court adequately weighed the applicable
       evidence provided on the record in the hearings held on April 7,
       2022, June [3], 2022, September 6, 2022, and May 9, 2023.

       (3) Whether the trial court sufficiently stated its rationale for its
       finding of contempt.

       (4) Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by
       entering sanctions not requested prior.

       (5) Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in
       determining sanctions.

       (6) Whether the trial court has shown bias or ill will in its decision-
       making.

Brief of Appellant, at 4.

____________________________________________

10 On October 5, 2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the court’s

September 6, 2022 order that was issued following a custody review hearing.
However, our Court quashed that appeal concluding that the order was not
final or otherwise appealable. See Pickett v. Hexter, et al, 1417 MDA 2022
(Pa. Super. filed March 8, 2023) (unpublished memorandum decision).

                                           -5-
J-A23006-23

      A party who willfully fails to comply with any custody order may, as

prescribed by general rule, be adjudged in contempt. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

5323(g). See also Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1207

(Pa. Super. 2003) (“With respect to civil contempt, ‘it is axiomatic that courts

have always possessed the inherent power to enforce their orders and decrees

by imposing sanctions for failure to comply with said orders.’”) (citation

omitted).

      An appellate court’s standard of review concerning a trial court’s

contempt findings is very narrow:

      This Court’s review of a civil contempt order is limited to a
      determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. If
      a trial court, in reaching its conclusion, overrides or misapplies the
      law or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or
      reaches a conclusion that is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias
      or ill will as shown by the evidence of record, then discretion is
      abused.

Gross v. Mintz, 284 A.3d 479, 489 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

Finally, “we defer to the credibility determinations of the trial court with regard

to the witnesses who appeared before it, as the court had the opportunity to

observe their demeanor.”      Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1236 (Pa.

Super. 2009).

                                       -6-
J-A23006-23

       To obtain a finding of civil contempt,11 a complainant must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the respondent failed to comply with a

definite, clear, and specific” court order. Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220,

226 (Pa. Super. 2018); Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 489 (Pa. Super.

2006) (citation omitted). Specifically, the complainant must prove: “(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.” Gross,

supra at 489 (citation omitted).          A court may enforce compliance with its

order “for the benefit of the party in whose favor the order runs but not to

inflict punishment.” Id.

       After a review of the parties’ briefs, the relevant case law, and the

certified record on appeal, we can find no abuse of discretion with the trial

court’s decision to hold Mother in contempt for failing to comply with prior

custody orders that were clear, definite, and specific and of which Mother had

notice. Thomas, supra; Stahl, supra; Gross, supra. The court’s contempt

____________________________________________

11 Contempt may be either civil or criminal.  The difference between the two
is based on the judicial response “to [the] contumacious behavior.” Garr v.
Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 190 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted). “A civil
adjudication of contempt coerces with a conditional or indeterminate sentence
of which the contemnor may relieve himself by obeying the court’s order.” Id.
at 191. However, if “the dominant purpose is to punish the contemnor for
disobedience of the court’s order or some other contemptuous act, the
adjudication of contempt is criminal.” Id. at 191 (citation omitted).

                                           -7-
J-A23006-23

order properly imposed non-punitive sanctions against Mother, which included

reimbursing Grandfather $750.00 for his legal fees and adding back lost time

to Grandfather’s visits due to Mother’s intentional, obstructionist actions. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g).12 Notably, the court did not modify or expand any of

the parties’ pre-existing custodial rights when imposing sanctions. See J.M.

v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2017). Furthermore, the court’s

factual findings are supported in the record, in large part based on

Grandfather’s uncontradicted testimony, and we find no error of law. Harcar,

supra; Gross, supra. We, therefore, rely upon Judge Menges’ opinion in

affirming the court’s contempt order, and instruct the parties to attach a copy

of that decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

       Order affirmed.
____________________________________________

12 Pursuant to section 5323(g) of the Domestic Relations Code:

       (g) Contempt for noncompliance with any custody order.

       (1) A party who willfully fails to comply with any custody order
       may, as prescribed by general rule, be adjudged in contempt.
       Contempt shall be punishable by any one or more of the following:

          (i) Imprisonment for a period of not more than six months.

          (ii) A fine of not more than $ 500.

          (iii) Probation for a period of not more than six months.

          (iv) An order for nonrenewal, suspension or denial of
          operating privilege under section 4355 (relating to denial or
          suspension of licenses).

          (v) Counsel fees and costs.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g).

                                           -8-
J-A23006-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/03/2024

                           -9-
                                                                   Circulated 12/19/2023 11:49 AM

                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                     FAMILY DIVISION

s    ..P                                               No.: 2021-FC-001007-03               c
               Plaintiff                                                              •
                                                                                      e:
                                                                                      4s.
                                                                                            ]
                                                                                            r
                                                                                C     Ce    n
                                                                                c           r
                                                                                c3    �
                                                                                    .,,
       vs.                                                                   -<
                                                                             $5-
                                                                                 ••   N
                                                                                            cD
                                                                                            -0
                                                                                            :0
                                                                                                    •a.'
                                                                                                    1,,

K      S.:.HI.       :,
               Defendant
                                                       ACTION IN CUSTODY[
                                                                             .Pr
                                                                             +L
                                                                                      »
                                                                                      -:
                                                                                            c2
                                                                                             g
                                                                                            -,-     3
                                                                                            --.
                                                                                            7
                                                                                wed
                                                                                rr%   ...   :2
                                                                                            c
                                                                                                     ;
                                                                                -U
       vs.                                                                            c
                                                                                      n     U

B.OH>
               Intervenor

    MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE
       1925(a)(2)(iil OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE
                               PROCEDURE

       AND NOW, this 21" day of June, 2023, the Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's

Notice of Appeal and Concise Statement of Errors Complained of Pursuant to Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925(b) filed on May 22, 2023. The Court hereby affirms its order

entered on May 9, 2023.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On March 8, 2023, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion regarding

an appeal filed by Mother, S   .P /., and summarized the relevant factual and

procedural history between the parties as follows:

              Mother and K ..H.           ("Father")[] have been involved in
       custody proceedings since 2018. Pursuant to a January 23, 2019 custody
                                              1

                                        - -       _;       _
                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

       order, Mother and Father had shared legal and physical custody of
       Children until Father was charged with sexually based offenses, prompting
       Mother to file a Petition to Modify Custody, requesting sole legal and
       physical custody, and Paternal Grandfather to file a Petition to Intervene,
       requesting visitation. The court scheduled a custody trial. During this time,
       Father pleaded no contest and was subsequently sentenced to a term of 4½
       to 10 years' incarceration.
                On April 11, 2022, after the first day of the ongoing custody trial,
       the trial court issued a Temporary Order of Custody granting Mother sole
       legal and physical custody of Children and Paternal Grandfather phone
       calls at least three times per month and partial physical custody of
       Children one Saturday per month.
                On June 3, 2022, after completion of the custody trial, the trial
       court confirmed Mother's sole legal and physical custody and increased
       Paternal Grandfather's partial physical custody to two Saturdays per
       month with phone contact every other Monday at 6:00 PM. In addition,
       the court ordered all parties to sign up for the Our Family Wizard
       computer program to communicate and ordered Mother to provide Father
       and Paternal Grandfather access to Children's school portal for
       information and records. The trial court scheduled a two-month review
       hearing to ascertain progress and "ensure things are going well." Order,
       6/3/22.
                On September 7, 2022, after a review hearing, the trial court
       confirmed the June 2, 2022 order. Additionally, the court ordered Mother
       to put Children's schedule including activities, medical appointments, and
       therapy appointments on Our Family Wizard, provide the school portal
       passcode to Paternal Grandfather, and sign releases so that Paternal
       Grandfather could speak to Children's therapist. The order scheduled
       another hearing for December 13, 2022.

P.   ·.H        · 2023 LEXIS 556 1-3 (Pa. Super. Mar. 8, 2023).

       At the review hearing on September 6, 2023, given Mother's lack of compliance,

the Court scheduled a second review hearing.

              Finally, the Court schedules a second
       review hearing. The second review hearing will be
       December 13th, 2022, at 10:00   a.m.in Courtroom 6005.
       The purpose of this review hearing will be:
                                              2

                                                          .--.
                                            3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

               I. The Court may give father and/or
       grandfather joint legal custody if it deems that in the
       best interest of these children.
               Secondarily, the Court may or may not
       increase grandfather's physical custodial rights.
               And finally, if father and/or
       grandfather files a petition for contempt, the hearing
       on December 13th may also be a contempt hearing.
               The Court wants to make it very clear
       that mother's attitude towards grandfather and his
       getting information and records of these children has
       been deplorable. Mother needs to over communicate with
       grandfather by Our Family Wizard and other means.

       kkk

               Mother has been cavalier about following
       the prior Orders of this Court, and the Court hereby
       admonishes mother and makes it very clear to her that
       this Court will not allow its Orders to be disobeyed
       and warns mother most severely that if this
       disobedience continues and a contempt petition is filed
       and she is found in contempt, the sanctions could be
       dire.

Order, Sep. 6, 2022, at 3-4.

       On April 10, 2023, Grandfather, B         He    , filed a petition for contempt,

citing Mother's alleged violations of the court's orders as follows:

              4. Mother willfully violated the Orders by refusing to comply with
       the phone call provisions outlined in the Orders.
               5. Mother has prevented or ended the phone calls while the
       children are talking with Grandfather. Specifically, Mother prevented on
       time phone calls on September 24, 2022, October 6, 2022, November 11,
       2022, January 30, 2023, February 6, 2023, February 20, 2023, and March
       20, 2023. Mother on September 19, 2022, December 5, 2022, November
       7, 2022, December 19, 2022, and March 6, 2023 prematurely ended the
       communication between children and Grandfather. Mother routinely calls

                                             3
                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

       Grandfather vulgar names before hanging up on him during his phone
       calls with the children.
               6. Mother willfully violated the Orders by speaking ill and
       derogatory about Grandfather in front of the children.
                7. Mother routinely interrupts the phone calls between children and
       Grandfather. During said interruptions, Mother calls Grandfather names
       such as predator, pedophile, and pervert with the children present.
                8. Mother willfully violated the Orders by refusing to communicate
       or furnish records to Grandfather about the children including but not
       limited to school reports, conferences, pictures, mental health, and
       counseling. To this day, Grandfather is without any knowledge whether
       the children are engaged in counseling to assist the children with their
       relationship with Defendant, K.            Ht
                9. Mother willfully violated the Orders by not informing
       Grandfather of parent teacher conferences for the children and refused to
       allow Grandfather to order school pictures of the children.
                10. Petitioner believes the Respondent's conduct is willful and
       intentional and is done for the purpose of alienation of the children from
       Petitioner and/or to deprive the Petitioner's rights of custody with the
       parties' children.
                11. Petitioner requests that this Court hold Respondent in contempt
       of the Orders dated April 7, 2022, June 2, 2022 and September 6, 2022
       with sanctions to be awarded against her, requiring her to pay Petitioner's
       counsel fees and costs, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337U)(4).
                12. Petitioner expects to incur attorney fees in the amount of
       $750.00 for the preparation regarding the filing of this Petition.

Pet. for Finding of Contempt of Custody Orders, 4/10/23, ,r,r 4-12.

       A status and contempt hearing was held on May 9, 2023, at which the

court heard testimony on the allegations contained in the contempt petition.

Grandfather testified that Mother's compliance with the court's orders had not

improved.

               THE COURT: Is the situation getting any better or is it just as bad
       as it was? Let's ask that question.
               ATTORNEY HOKE: I think it's just as bad
                                             4
                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

       as it was. In fact, Mother is now [with]holding Grandfather's time
       altogether. His last visit he was
       supposed to have [sic] on April 22nd, she did not relinquish
       the children. Looking back at the Court's prior
       Orders, going back to even June of last year, this has
       been an ongoing problem with Mother.

Status & Contempt Hr'g, Tr., 5/9/2023, 10-14.

       The court heard testimony regarding various other violations. Grandfather

testified regarding never receiving portal passwords or information regarding the

childrens' schooling or medical appointments.

       Okay. Going back to June from the last Order
       with your phone calls with the children, do you more
       consistently have contact with them or were they more
       frequently denied?
       A. With the phone ca11s?
       Q. Yeah.
       A. Half and half, I would say.
       Q. Okay. Regarding the children's medical
       status, since the beginning of the school year, we'll
       say August oflast year, has Mother informed you of any
       doctor's appointments she's taken the children to?
       A. None.
       Q. Has she told you of any dental appointments
       she's taken the children to?
       A. None.
       k¢k

       Q. Regarding the children's educational status,
       going back to the beginning of the school year, has
       Mother provided you copies of any report cards for
       either of the children?
       A. Nothing. From what I understand, the report
       cards are done electronically, and she has never given
       me the access to the school report cards to get their
       progresses.
                                            5
                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

        Q. And in the last Order, Mother was directed to
        turn over the log-in infonnation for the portal,
        correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. And that never happened?
        A. Never happened.
        Q. Has she ever told you about upcoming teacher
        conferences for either child[]?
        A. Never.
        Q. Back-to-school nights?
        A. Never.
        Q. School events?
        A. Never.
        Q. Are the children involved in any other school
        related or extracurricular activities that you are
        aware of?
        A. Not that I'm aware of.

Id., at 12-14.

        Grandfather testified regarding Mother's failure to meaningfully use

OurFamilyWizard. Additionally, Grandfather, whom the children call Pop Pop, testified

regarding missed visits, missed and interrupted phone calls, and Mother's derogatory

comments. Id., at 10-14.

        BY ATTORNEY HOKE
                Q. Okay. Has there been other occasions where
        Mother has interrupted your phone calls with the
        children?
                A. A couple of times.
                Q. What does she say when she interrupts these
        phone calls with the children?
                A. Told me I'm a pedophile and stuff like that
        on the phone. Calling me all kinds of different names
        like that.
                THE COURT: In front of the children?
                THE WITNESS: I believe the children are
                                             6

                                    ---�---·•·•""'"    .,_   _   ,   ,    _
                                           3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

        in front of her because I was talking to the kids and
        she took the phone off of them.
                  THE COURT: Go ahead.
        BY ATIORNEYHOKE:
                  Q. Thank you. So to follow up on that, have
        there been other instances outside of these phone calls
        that you're aware of that Mother has made derogatory
        comments about you or about Father to the children?
                  A. I know that the kids have told me how mommy
        tells us she doesn't like you, mommy hates you, etc.,
        like that. And, in fact, the last time I came to pick
        them up, which was the Saturday before Easter, the kids
        got into the truck with me and said, when you got here,
        mommy was sitting there, and she saw you come up, and
        she gave you the finger out the window. That's bad,
        isn't it, Pop Pop? I said, that's very bad.

Id., at 10-11.

        At the beginning of the hearing, Mother requested a continuance so that she could

seek new counsel. Id., at 3. Both Father and Grandfather objected asserting that Mother

had plenty of time to secure new counsel. Id., at 4, 6. The request for a continuance was

denied and Mother declined to speak without counsel. Id., at 4.

                 THE COURT: All right. Your request for
        a continuance is denied. So we're going to go ahead
        and have a hearing.
        Attorney Hoke, you ready?
                 THE MOTHER: Do what you're going to do.
                 THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. P
        What did you say?
                 THE MOTHER: I said, okay, do what you
        are going to do. At this point, I'm going to plead the
        Fifth. I will not participate. They have not entered
        any sort of evidence, which apparently there are
        evidentiary requirements when you tile something with
        the Court, as well as burden of proof, so they have not
                                             7
                                                  3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

             -- their petition to intervene nor would the petition
             for contempt provide any sort of evidence to the Court
             to suggest that anything of this nature is actually
             happening.

     Id., at 6-7.

             Despite Mother's decision not to participate, she did cross-examine Grandfather,

     but still declined to testify or call any witnesses in her own defense.

                      THE COURT: Okay. Ms. P          ,do you
             have any witnesses you want to call?
                      THE MOTHER: No, Your Honor.
                      THE COURT: You don't want to testify?
                      THE MOTHER: No, Your Honor.
                      THE COURT: You know there is no right
             to not self-incriminate in a civil case.
                      THE MOTHER: That's fine. I do not wish
             to testify, Your Honor. Thank you.

     Id., at 16.

              The court found Mother in contempt based on the testimony before it. The court
-t
 '   provided several sanctions. Given Mother's refusal to follow the court's orders enabling

     Grandfather's information about and contact with the children as ordered, the court

     sought to enforce its orders by increasing Grandfather's rights. The court stated that it

     had raised this possibility in prior orders. Id., at 19. However, Grandfather testified that

     he had not yet filed a petition for modification pending the outcome of the contempt

     hearing. Id., at 15-16. In addition, the court's review of Pa.C.S. $ 5323(g) confirmed that

     the court could not expand Grandfather's custodial rights as an enforcement sanction.

     Pa.C.S. $ 5323(g).
                                                   8
                                            3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

       In its order of May 9, 2023, the court identified Mother's violations of its orders

and issued sanctions, which included payment of Grandfather's attorney's fees in the

amount of $750. Mother filed a notice of appeal on May 22, 2023.

                                 ISSUES ON APPEAL

       Plaintiff s Concise Statement of Errors Complained of Pursuant to Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925(b) that provides the following:

       1. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its finding of contempt.
       2. Whether the trial court adequately weighed the applicable evidence provided
          on the record in the hearings held on April 07, 2022, June 02, 2022, September
          06, 2022, and May 9, 2023.
       3. Whether the trial court sufficiently stated its rationale for its finding of
          contempt.
       4. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by entering sanctions not
          requested prior.
       5. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in determining sanctions.:
       6. Whether the trial court has shown bias or ill will in its decision-making.

                                      DISCUSSION

       '·When considering an appeal from an Order holding a party in contempt for

failure to comply with a court Order, [an appellate court's] scope ofreview is narrow:

[the appellate court] wiJl reverse only upon a showing the court abused its discretion.

Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

       Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process. The
       contempt power is essential to the preservation of the court's authority and
       prevents the administration of justice from falling into disrepute. When
       reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellant [sic] court must
       place great reliance upon the discretion of the trial judge.
       k k k

                                              9

                                 ---�--····· ···••····-··· ...   . ... ···········-·--·
                                             3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

       [T]his Court defers to the credibility determinations of the trial court with
       regard to the witnesses who appeared before it, as that court has had the
       opportunity to observe their demeanor.

Id., at 1236 (citation omitted and formatting not altered).

       "If a trial court, in reaching its conclusion, overrides or misapplies the

law or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or reaches a conclusion that

is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill wiJl as shown by the evidence ofrecord,

then discretion is abused. Gross v. Mintz, 284 A.3d 479, 489 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted and formatting altered).

       To find one in civil contempt, a complainant must prove by a preponderance
       of the evidence that the respondent is in noncompliance with a court order.
       The order must be clear, definite, and specific. To sustain a finding of civil
       contempt, the complainant must prove that: (I) the contemnor had notice of
       the specific order or decree which he is alleged to have violated, (2) the act
       constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional, and (3) the contemnor
       acted with wrongful intent.

Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220,226 (Pa. Super. 2018).

        "Moreover, a court may exercise its civil contempt power to enforce compliance

with its orders for the benefit of the party in whose favor the order runs but not to inflict

punishment. A party must have violated a court order to be found in civil contempt."

Gross v. Mintz, 284 A.3d, at 489 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

However, "a mere showing of noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is

never sufficient alone to prove civil contempt." Thomas v». Thomas, 194 A.3d at 226. "If

the alleged contemnor is unable to perform and has, in good faith, attempted to comply

                                              10
                                            3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

with the court order, then contempt is not proven." Id. (citations omitted). "The

contemnor has the burden to prove the affirmative defense that he lacks the ability to

comply." Id.

       1. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its finding of contempt.
       3. Whether the trial court sufficiently stated its rationale for its finding of
          contempt.

       The Court will address Plaintiffs first and third issues together because they both

relate to the finding of contempt. Mother does not identify what error the court is alleged

to have committed or in what way it is alleged to have abused its discretion in finding her

in contempt. It is denied that this Court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its

discretion in relation to the finding of contempt. Here, the three elements cited above are

met. The court's orders of April 7, 2022, June 2, 2022, September 6, 2022, are clear,

definite, and specific. Mother had notice of the orders that she is alleged to have

disobeyed. The court found that Mother's violations of orders the court entered in her

children's best interests were both volitional and with wrongful intent. At the contempt

hearing on May 9, 2023, Mother put forward no testimony or defense asserting an

inability to perform or of making a good-faith effort to comply with the court's orders. It

is not entirely clear why Mother is so resistant to following the court's orders regarding

allowing Grandfather to have information and contact with the children. Indeed, at the

pre-trial conference on February 8, 2022, Mother's attorney explained that Mother does

                                             11
                                                   3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

not have a problem with Grandfather having contact with the children; however, she has

a problem with the court-mandated nature of it.

        BY ATTORNEY BOD ENE
                So my client doesn't have a problem in
        theory with grandfather having contact with the
        children. It's the court-ordered time. She in the past
        has always accommodated his request when he wants to
        stop by, see the kids, take them out for lunch with her
        present. She doesn't have a problem with that. It's
        the court-ordered mandated nature of it that does not
        match up with the history that is her concern, Your
        Honor.

Pre-Trial Conf., Tr., 2/8/2022, at 4-5.

        At any rate, Mother did not explain her reasons for violating the court's orders at

the contempt hearing. The court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding Mother in

contempt, and the court's order of May 9, 2023 sufficiently states its rationale for the

contempt finding.

        4. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by entering sanctions not
           requested prior.
        5. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in determining sanctions.

        The Court will address Plaintiffs, fourth and fifth issues together because they

both relate to sanctions. It is denied that this Court erred as a matter oflaw and/or abused

its discretion in relation to the issuance of sanctions. The court issued sanctions pursuant

23 Pa.C.S. $ 5323(g)' to encourage Mother's compliance with its orders. The court

The court's May 9, 2023 order contains a typo in the citation to the sanctions statute. The citation
should be listed as 23 Pa.C.S. 5 5323(g) instead of 5 5325(g).
                                                    12
                                             3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

required Mother to reimburse Grandfather for attorney's fees in the amount of$750.

Order, 5/9/23, at 4. The Child Custody Act permits a court to impose a sanction of

"counsel fees and costs" after finding that a party is in contempt of a custody order. 23

Pa.C.S. $ 5323(g)01)(9). "Attorney fees may be assessed as a sanction for the contemnor's

refusal to comply with a court Order, causing the innocent party to incur fees" as a result

of the contemnor's noncompliance. Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d, at 1234. In reviewing a

grant of attorney's fees, (an appellate court] will not disturb the decision below absent a

clear abuse of discretion." Goodman v. Goodman, 556 A.2d 1379, 1391 n.8 (Pa. Super.

1989) Here, the court heard testimony from Grandfather that he had incurred $7 50 or

more in attorney's fees in relation to the contempt action. Tr., 5/9/23, at 14. The court

determined that this amount was reasonable. Although the court was not required to

consider Mother's ability to pay before granting an award of attorney's fees, the court did

assess Mother's income and her ability to pay. Id., at 17-18. Thus, the court did not abuse

its discretion in relation to the determination of sanctions.

   2. Whether the trial court adequately weighed the applicable evidence provided on
       the record in the hearings held on April 07, 2022, June 02, 2022, and September
       06, 2022.

       [W]ith regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, [an appellate

court] must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-

hand. D.R.L. • K.L.C., 216 A.3d 276,279 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). The Court

asserts that it adequately weighed the evidence provided at the hearings on April 7, 2022,

                                              13
                                                       3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

June 2, 2022, September 06, 2022, and May 9, 2023.

           As a side note, in March 8, 2023, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an

opinion quashing Mother's prior appeal under docket number 1417 MDA 2022,

explaining that the order of September 6, 2022 was not a final appealable order because

the court contemplated expanding Father's/Grandfather rights.? The September 6, 2022
                                                                                                             i
hearing was scheduled as a follow-up or a status review hearing to assess compliance                        .I
after the court's order after a custody trial on June 2, 2022. At the September 6, 2022

status hearing, the Court issued an ordered that another status hearing would be scheduled

on December 13, 2022, which would also contemplate expanding Grandfather's rights.

Order, Sep. 6, 2022, at 3.

           The Court explained as follows:

           BY THE COURT:
                  Finally, the Court schedules a second
           review hearing. The second review hearing will be
           December 13th, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6005.
           The purpose of this review hearing will be:

                    1. The Court may give father and/or

?   The Superior Court wrote:

           After careful review, we conclude that the order at issue here is not a final order. The trial
           court scheduled the December 13, 2022 hearing to contemplate granting legal custody to
           Paternal Grandfather and increasing physical custody to Paternal Grandfather. The record
           indicates that the trial court, thus, has not completed the hearings on the merits and there
           is not yet a complete resolution of the claims between the parties. Accordingly, despite
           the trial court's characterization, the September 7, 2022 order is not appealable because
           it is not a final order, but rather an interlocutory order.

P,    •v.H          2023 LEXIS 556, 4-5.
                                                        14
                                             3- 1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd
                                                                                               .   I

       grandfather joint legal custody if it deems that in the
       best interest of these children.
               Secondarily, the Court may or may not
       increase grandfather's physical custodial rights.
               And finally, if father and/or
       grandfather files a petition for contempt, the hearing
       on December 13th may also be a contempt hearing.

Order, 9/6/23, at 3.

        Due to Mother's first appeal, the December 13, 2022, status hearing that was

scheduled to contemplate expanded rights for Grandfather did not occur until May 9,

2023. The May 9, 2023 hearing also contemplated expanding Grandfather's rights, which

would suggest that the order is not a final appealable order. However, a petition for

contempt was filed, making the hearing also a contempt hearing at which sanctions were

issued and for which there was no intervening hearing scheduled prior to the sanctions

taking effect. Thus, the court responds to the appeal of the May 9, 2023 order, at least as

to the contempt aspect, as though it is from a final appealable order, even though the

court also contemplated granting additional custodial rights to Grandfather. Order,

5/9/23, at 1-2.

        6. Whether the trial court has shown bias or ill will in its decision-making.

        Mother's allegation does not identify in what way the court is alleged to have

shown bias or ill will in its decision-making. At the contempt hearing appealed from,

Mother offered no testimony, witnesses, or evidence in her own behalf. It is simply not

clear to the court what bias or ill-will Mother alleges. Therefore, the court denies that it

                                              15

                  -------·---···--·---·-"- ....                           ------·
                                           3-1925a memorandum opinion 6-21-2023.pd

has shown bias or ill-will in its decision-making.

                                     CONCLUSION

       After review of the record and for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby

reaffirms its order entered on May 9, 2023 that found Mother in civil contempt.

                                              BY THE COURT,

                                                                  MENGES, JUDGE

The Prothonotary is directed to serve notice of the entry of this Opinion as required
by law and rule of court.

                                             16