Court Opinion

ID: 9890828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 16:09:27.584577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:22.721253
License: Public Domain

J-A20038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  ELIZABETH ENCARNACION AND LUIS :                 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  RAUL RIVERA                    :                      PENNSYLVANIA
                                 :
                                 :
            v.                   :
                                 :
                                 :
  DIANNE VANESSA REYES-RIVERA,   :
  RAMON RIVERA AND BERKS COUNTY :                  No. 25 MDA 2023
  CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES    :
                                 :
                                 :
  APPEAL OF: BERKS COUNTY        :
  CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES    :
  AND ASHLEY ESPOSITO, ESQUIRE   :

              Appeal from the Order Dated November 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):
                                 18-16831

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

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                       FILED: OCTOBER 16, 2023

       Berks County Children and Youth Services (“CYS” or “the Agency”) and

Ashley Esposito, Esquire (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal the November 28,

2022, order imposing sanctions for contempt and ordering CYS to mediate a

custody      or    visitation     schedule     between   Elizabeth    Encarnacion

(“Grandmother”),         Luis    Paul     Rivera   (“Grandfather”)    (collectively,

“Grandparents”) and three of Grandparents’ grandchildren, L.R.R., born in

January 2008, A.R.R., born in December 2008, and C.A.R.R., born in July 2013

(collectively, “the Children”). After a careful review, we reverse.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20038-23

       Although this controversy is before us on the narrow issue of contempt

stemming from a custody matter, the case also inextricably touches upon

related dependency and adoption proceedings. The certified record reflects

the following relevant facts and procedural history: CYS has been involved

with this family in some capacity since 2007.1 See Encarnacion v. Berks

County Children & Youth, 284 A.3d 935 (Pa.Super. 2022) (unpublished

memorandum).         The Children were removed from their biological parents’

custody in July 2017 due to allegations of domestic violence, inappropriate

parenting, mental health issues, and substance abuse. See N.T., 9/6/19, at

9-10, 18-19. The Children were adjudicated dependent and placed with a

foster family (“Adoptive Parents”) beginning in December 2017.2             See

Encarnacion, supra, at 2-3.

       In October 2018, Grandparents initiated the instant custody action,

wherein they sought “physical and legal custody” of the Children or,

____________________________________________

1  The Agency’s involvement did not begin with the Children but concerned
three children that resided in a kinship placement with Grandparents between
September 2007 and May 2011. See N.T., 9/6/19, at 26-27. During this
time, the Agency detailed concerns about Grandfather using drugs and driving
without a license, unpaid truancy fines, pest infestations, incidents of domestic
violence, and allegations of criminal behavior involving weapons and narcotics.
See id. at 27-30. Ultimately, the children were removed from Grandparents’
custody in May 2011.         See id. at 29-30.        Thereafter, Grandparents
unsuccessfully sought to be a foster resource in eight cases involving
seventeen of their children or grandchildren. See id. at 31-38.

2 The Children have remained exclusively in Adoptive Parents’ care since that
time, save for a period from August 2018 to June 2019, when they resided
with a different, non-familial foster family. See N.T., 9/6/19, at 14-15.

                                           -2-
J-A20038-23

alternatively, visitation rights. See Amended Complaint for Custody, 2/17/19,

at ¶ 19; Pre-Trial Memorandum, 2/17/19, at 3.             The custody case was

assigned to the Honorable James M. Bucci, who ordered it be held in abeyance

after noting the Children were subject to parallel dependency proceedings

overseen by the Honorable Jeffrey K. Sprecher. See Order, 3/1/19.

       In April 2019, Grandparents petitioned the dependency court for

standing to participate in those proceedings. See N.T., 4/12/19, at 9-12. The

Agency opposed the request and noted that Grandparents had twice applied

to be foster parents to the Children, had been denied on both occasions, and

had not appealed those findings.3          See id. The dependency court did not

grant Grandparents standing; however, the court directed that they be

afforded a “third chance” to establish themselves as a suitable kinship

placement for the Children. Id. at 16-17. At the same hearing, the Children’s

permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption. See id. at 17-

18.   At Grandparents’ request, the custody court reconsidered its earlier

directive and scheduled a hearing on their custody petition for October 2019.

____________________________________________

3  On October 25, 2017, Grandparents were denied foster placement status
for the first time due to being unable to supply state police and child abuse
clearances. See N.T., 4/12/19, at 11-13; N.T., 9/6/19, at 31. Grandparents’
second application was denied on January 4, 2018, after the Agency
determined that they had failed to seek mandated mental health services.
See id. Grandparents were required to appeal those determinations in writing
within thirty days. See 55 Pa. Code § 3700.72 (“Foster family approval
appeals.”).

                                           -3-
J-A20038-23

      In August 2019, CYS referred Grandparents to an independent provider,

Diakon, for their third fitness evaluation in these matters. Ultimately, Diakon

declined to approve Grandparents as an adoptive home for the Children due

to concerns about their lack of truthfulness during the evaluation. See Brief

in Support of Petition to Vacate, 11/10/21, at Exhibit A. The record does not

reflect that Grandparents appealed that determination in any fashion.

      Instead, Grandparents renewed their request for “due process” rights in

the dependency proceedings. See N.T., 9/6/19, at 15-17. The trial court

devoted the entirety of a September 6, 2016, hearing to conducting extensive

fact-finding concerning Grandparents’ relationship with the Children and their

history with the Agency.     See id. at 8-116.     Richard F. Small, Ph.D., a

stipulated expert in psychology who had conducted foster fitness evaluations

of Grandmother and Grandfather, opined that they both required mental

health evaluations and treatment for domestic violence issues before the

Children could be committed to their custody. See id. at 82, 91. Dr. Small

also reported that Grandparents were evasive and contradictory during their

evaluations. See id. at 85-86. Along similar lines, Joyce Riche of Diakon

confirmed that Grandparents had been rejected as an adoptive resource due

to their lack of candor during their third fitness evaluation. See id. at 96.

      Ultimately,   the   dependency    court   adjourned    the   dependency

proceedings and afforded Grandparents an opportunity to undergo mental

health evaluations and domestic violence treatment. See id. at 106-16.

                                     -4-
J-A20038-23

       On October 31, 2019, Judge Bucci recused himself from the custody

proceedings without having held a hearing.4         Thereafter, the matter was

assigned to a second judge who took no action. In February 2020, the custody

case was reassigned to Judge Sprecher, who was now overseeing both the

custody and dependency dockets. See Order, 2/6/20.

       No custody hearing was held within this time frame. Between January

and February 2020, the parental rights of the Children’s biological parents

were terminated. See Encarnacion, supra, at 2-3. Thereafter, the COVID-

19 pandemic precluded the custody proceedings from progressing further.

Between February 2020 and July 2020, the parties unsuccessfully attempted

to negotiate an amicable resolution to Grandparents’ custody claims.

       In December 2020, the dependency court credited a psychological

evaluation of the Children and ordered that their contact with their “birth

family” be suspended due to concerns about “past trauma” negatively

influencing the Children’s behavior. See Brief in Support of Petition to Vacate,

11/10/21, at Exhibit B. See also N.T., 2/10/21, at 7. Thus, Grandparents’

contact with the Children ceased in December 2020.

       Ultimately, the custody court scheduled a hearing on Grandparents’

complaint for February 10, 2021. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Esposito was

reassigned to represent the Agency in the custody proceedings following the

____________________________________________

4   The reason for Judge Bucci’s recusal is not evident in the certified record.

                                           -5-
J-A20038-23

sudden departure of one of her colleagues. On February 9, 2021, she applied

for a continuance. At the hearing the next day, she explained that she needed

additional time to review the extensive filings and records in the case since

she had only recently taken over the matter. See N.T., 2/10/21, at 8-9. In

seeking this continuance, Attorney Esposito also advised opposing counsel and

the court: “[B]y way of full disclosure, the [a]gency is continuing to move

forward with permanency for these children.” Id. at 10. The court granted

the request, and the hearing was rescheduled for March 4, 2021.

      On February 16, 2021, however, the custody court was informed, for

the first time, that adoption decrees with respect to the Children had been

finalized by President Judge Thomas G. Parisi of the Berks County Court of

Common Pleas on that same day. See N.T., 2/17/21, at 5; N.T., 8/31/21, at

6. Specifically, it came to light that Adoptive Parents had filed a petition to

adopt the Children on February 3, 2021, through their private counsel, Susan

Denaro, Esquire.    Although Attorney Esposito did not participate in the

adoption proceedings, she was aware of the pending adoption when she

sought a continuance in the custody court. See N.T., 2/17/21, at 5-7.

      The next day, Grandparents’ counsel and Attorney Esposito appeared

before the custody court to address the circumstances that had effectively

                                     -6-
J-A20038-23

pre-empted Grandparents’ custody complaint.5 See id. at 6. Specifically, the

custody court expressed concern that Attorney Esposito had sought a

continuance in an act of gamesmanship to ensure that Grandparents’ custody

case was not heard on the merits. Id. at 5-7.

       Attorney Esposito explained her actions as follows:

       Respectfully, Your Honor, I did not ask for the continuance
       knowing that the adoption – I asked for the continuance because
       I genuinely needed time to actually understand and figure out
       what the case was. I didn’t even know that it was anticipated that
       the date would be set for a full hearing with witnesses, and I was
       not prepared to proceed not knowing the history of the case.

Id. She also explained that the circumstances posed by these intersecting

cases had placed her and the Agency in a “precarious” position since adoption

proceedings are deemed to be “confidential” under Pennsylvania law. Id. at

6-7. The custody court took no immediate action.

       In March 2021, Grandparents filed a petition in the adoption proceedings

seeking to intervene, requesting that the decrees be vacated, and asking that

____________________________________________

5  Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326, any “rights to seek physical custody or
legal custody rights and any custody rights that have been granted…to a
grandparent…prior to the adoption of the child by an individual other than a
stepparent, grandparent or great-grandparent shall be automatically
terminated upon such adoption.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326. As this Court has
observed, “a decree of adoption terminates forever all relations between a
child and his biological parents and severs the child entirely from its own
family tree and engrafts it upon its new parentage.” E.T.S. v. S.L.H., 54 A.3d
880, 883 (Pa.Super. 2012) (concluding that any rights arguably based upon
an assertion of in loco parentis “prior to the adoption of the [c]hildren was
terminated at the time of their adoption”) (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326)). See
Faust v. Messinger, 497 A.2d 1351, 1353-54 (Pa.Super. 1985) (same).

                                           -7-
J-A20038-23

the adoption be transferred to Judge Sprecher. See N.T., 8/31/21, at 28-32.

Following an unrecorded conference that took place in President Judge Parisi’s

chambers     on    April   6,   2021,    Grandparents   voluntarily   withdrew   the

intervention petition without further proceedings. Id.

       On May 26, 2021, Grandparents submitted a petition for special relief in

the custody court seeking, inter alia, to hold Appellants and Attorney Denaro

in contempt of court. On August 31, 2021, the custody court held a hearing

on the petition, wherein Attorney Denaro testified extensively regarding the

events that took place in the adoption proceedings.

       Attorney Denaro reported that President Judge Parisi had been made

fully aware of Grandparents’ pending custody matter, and he had declined to

order that notice of the adoption proceedings be provided to Grandparents.6

See id. at 5-39. In opposing Grandparents’ allegations, Appellants reiterated

that they had been effectively precluded from alerting the custody court

regarding the adoption proceedings by the provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2910,

which criminalizes disclosure of “confidential information relating to an

____________________________________________

6  We note that 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2721 only requires that notice of an adoption
hearing be provided to “all persons whose consents are required and to such
other persons as the court shall direct.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2721. Grandparents
are not identified as parties whose consent is necessary to adopt. See 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2711(a)(1)-(5). Furthermore, this Court has opined that “[t]he
limited, transitory nature of grandparental visitation privileges…convinces us
that the privileges may be terminated in an adoption, just as all familial ties
between an adoptee and other blood relatives are severed, without notice
and without hearing.” Faust, 497 A.2d at 1353 (emphasis added).

                                           -8-
J-A20038-23

adoption” by “[a]ny officer or employee of the court, other than a judge[.]”

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2910.

      On October 18, 2021, the trial court filed an order providing as follows:

      AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2021, in accordance with the
      attached [o]pinion setting forth the procedural and substantive
      defects in the above captioned custody case and the related
      adoptions, it is hereby ORDERED that all parties, counsel, and the
      adoptive parents shall appear in Courtroom 9 on November 19,
      2021, at 11:30 A.M. to work on an agreed visitation schedule
      between [Grandparents] and the [Children].

      If the parties enter into an agreement prior to the hearing date,
      the parties shall submit the agreement and proposed order, and
      this court will cancel the hearing. This court’s goal is to allow
      contact as can be arranged by the adopting parents and
      [G]randparents.

      Failing the above, this court will move forward with sanctions and
      a full custody hearing in the custody action, as previously
      scheduled on February 10, 2021, which hearing was circumvented
      by [the Agency] and counsel for [Adoptive Parents].

Order, 10/18/21. Appellants filed a petition to vacate the purported findings

of contempt, which was granted with respect to Attorney Denaro but denied

as to Appellants. See Order, 1/19/22.

      Appellants filed an appeal from the January 19, 2022, order denying

their petition to vacate, which was quashed by this Court after we determined

that the order was not final and appealable since future proceedings were still

contemplated, i.e., a hearing concerning the imposition of sanctions.      See

Encarnacion, supra, at 3-4. On remand, the custody court held a hearing

on sanctions, wherein the parties largely reiterated their earlier arguments

concerning contempt and confidentiality. See N.T., 11/10/22, at 2-25.

                                     -9-
J-A20038-23

     On November 28, 2022, the trial court filed the following order:

     AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2022, after argument of
     counsel and review of the record, it is hereby ORDERED as follows
     regarding the sanctions of [Appellants]:

     1. This court has jurisdiction of the parties in this case due to the
     court’s finding of contempt. Courts retain jurisdiction to enforce
     orders.

     2. At the time of the original custody trial, [the Agency] had legal
     custody of the [C]hildren and the ability to enter into custody
     agreements, which prior counsel for [the Agency] had agreed to
     do. [The Agency] did not execute any agreement and gave no
     reason why a custody agreement was not forthcoming. [The
     Agency] shall mediate a custody/visitation schedule of the subject
     children between plaintiffs and adoptive parents within 30 days of
     the date of this order.

     3. In the event that no mediation order is entered by January 2,
     2023, this court will be entering an order for custody/visitation
     upon praecipe of plaintiff’s counsel. The parties shall each submit
     a proposed order of visitation of this court no later than January
     13, 2023.

     4. [The Agency] shall pay plaintiffs’ attorney fees as stated in
     court by [Grandparents’ counsel] in the amount of $7,500.00
     within 45 days of the date of this [o]rder.

     5. Attorney Esposito shall pay a sanction in the amount of $250
     payable to the County of Berks and delivered and filed in the Berks
     County Prothonotary Office within 45 days of the date of this
     order.

Order, 11/28/22, at 1-2.

     On December 22, 2022, Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal along

with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to

                                    - 10 -
J-A20038-23

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).7 The custody court filed a responsive opinion

explaining the court’s reasoning pursuant to Rule 1925(a)(2)(ii).

       Appellants have raised the following issues for our consideration:

       1.   Whether the trial court erred in finding that the evidence
       warranted a finding of civil contempt against [Appellants] where
       [Grandparents] failed to present sufficient evidence that there was
       contemptuous conduct?

       2.    Whether the trial court erred when it issued monetary
       sanctions against [Attorney Esposito] where [Grandparents] failed
       to present any evidence of monetary damages and where the
       amount     ordered    was    inappropriate   and   unnecessarily
       burdensome?

       3.    Whether the trial court erred when it ordered [the Agency]
       to pay [Grandparents’] counsel fees where [Grandparents] failed
       to present invoices, bills, or other evidence of attorneys’ fees?

       4.     Whether the trial court erred in ordering [the Agency] to
       mediate a custody/visitation schedule where the trial court had no
       jurisdiction over the subject children given that they had already
       been adopted?

Appellants’ Brief at 4-5.

____________________________________________

7  Given this Court’s earlier disposition in Encarnacion v. Berks County
Children & Youth, 284 A.3d 935 (Pa.Super. 2022) (unpublished
memorandum), we note that the trial court’s November 28, 2022, order
imposing sanctions in connection with its earlier finding of contempt was final
for the purposes of appealability. See Glynn v. Glynn, 789 A.2d 242, 248
(Pa.Super. 2001) (“[F]or a contempt order to be properly appealable, it is only
necessary that the order impose sanctions on the contemnor and that no
further court order be required before the sanctions take effect.”); Pa.R.A.P.
341(a). Instantly, the financial sanctions imposed upon Appellants took
immediate effect, thereby rendering the order final and appealable.
Furthermore, the mere fact that the order also contained a purge condition
does not impact its finality in this context. See Glynn, 789 A.2d at 248
(“[T]he purge conditions did not render the [o]rder interlocutory.”).

                                          - 11 -
J-A20038-23

      Our standard of review regarding a trial court’s finding of contempt is

“very narrow” and “limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused

its discretion.” Gross v. Mintz, 284 A.3d 479, 489 (Pa.Super. 2022). In this

context, an abuse of discretion occurs where the 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.” Id.

      Preliminarily, we note that the custody court did not explicitly identify

the nature of its contempt finding.     Under Pennsylvania law, “[c]ontempt

proceedings may be criminal or civil in nature.”         County of Fulton v.

Secretary of Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, 292 A.3d 974, 1027 (2023).

This distinction is not merely formalistic, but it is “extremely important” since

it determines both “the due process rights of the alleged contemnor” and the

relevant burdens of proof.      Id. (cleaned up).     There is no “bright line

distinction” drawn between the two basic varieties of contempt, since civil and

criminal contempt each share “common attributes.”          Id.   However, “the

decisions of our Supreme Court agree that the fundamental and controlling

difference between civil and criminal contempt proceedings is the ‘dominant

purpose’ of the sanctions that are to be imposed.” Id. (emphasis in original).

      This determination “depends on whether the core purpose of the

sanction imposed is to vindicate the authority of the court, in which case the

contempt is criminal, or whether the contempt is to aid the beneficiary of the

                                     - 12 -
J-A20038-23

order being defied, in which case it is civil.” Id. at 1028. See Knaus v.

Knaus, 387 Pa. 370, 127 A.2d 669, 672 (1956) (“[W]here the act of contempt

complained of is the refusal to do or refrain from doing some act ordered or

prohibited primarily for the benefit of a private party, proceedings to enforce

compliance with the decree of the court are civil in nature.”). Additionally,

our Supreme Court has enumerated five additional factors that, if present,

suggest that a contempt proceeding is civil rather than criminal:

      (1) Where the complainant is a private person as opposed to the
      government or a governmental agency; (2) where the proceeding
      is entitled in the original injunction action and filed as a
      continuation thereof as opposed to a separate and independent
      action; (3) where holding the defendant in contempt affords relief
      to a private party; (4) where the relief requested is primarily for
      the benefit of the complainant; and (5) where the acts of contempt
      complained of are primarily civil in character and do not of
      themselves constitute crimes or conduct by the defendant so
      contumelious that the court is impelled to act on its own motion.

County of Fulton, supra, at 1028 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

      Upon review, we readily conclude that the “dominant purpose” of the

custody court’s final contempt order of November 28, 2022, was to benefit

Grandparents by coercing Appellants into securing Grandparents legal custody

or visitation rights with respect to the Children. Accordingly, the basic thrust

of the contempt in the instant matter is civil in nature. See County of Fulton,

supra, at 1027-28.     Furthermore, Grandparents are private litigants who

petitioned for a contempt finding in the instant case as a means of securing

relief, i.e., custody rights as to the Children. See id. at 1028. Finally, there

is no allegation or suggestion that the actions of Appellants were criminal, in

                                     - 13 -
J-A20038-23

and of themselves. Accordingly, we hold that the instant case concerns civil

contempt.

      In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt,

      the complainant must prove certain distinct elements by a
      preponderance of the evidence: (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. 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, 284 A.3d at 489. In this context, “the general rule is that in civil

contempt proceedings the burden is on the complaining party to prove

noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence, but that present inability

to comply is an affirmative defense which must be proved by the alleged

contemnor.” Barrett v. Barrett, 470 Pa. 253, 368 A.2d 616, 621 (1977).

      Appellant’s first claim for relief asserts that the custody court’s finding

of civil contempt was not supported by sufficient evidence. See Appellants’

Brief at 17 (“Despite this lack of evidence, the trial court opined that Attorney

Esposito committed fraud upon the court by omission when she failed to

inform the [custody] court, at the time she requested a continuance in the

custody matter, that the adoption hearing was scheduled a week later.”).

Unfortunately, the custody court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion is not responsive to

the issue of civil contempt. Instead, it discusses topics such as fraud and

culpability with the obvious object of convincing this Court to vacate the

                                     - 14 -
J-A20038-23

adoption decrees entered with respect to the Children. See Custody Court

Opinion, 2/27/23, at 26 (“To assure there is real access to the legal system,

the administration of justice, and confidence in the rule of law and the justice

system in our democracy, I am forced to ask for the only relief that still

remains, that the adoption hearing be vacated.”).

      The custody court argues that such extraordinary relief is mandated due

to “the [a]gency’s intractable position that it does not have to facilitate any

visitation between the [C]hildren and Grandparents.” Id. at 11. Overall, the

custody court seems to believe that these custody proceedings should have

taken priority over the adoption proceedings.     Id. at 22 (“If the adoption

hearing was stayed, I could have made the right decision with this information

and...avoided destroying Grandparents’ case by pulling the carpet out from

under them without any reason to do so. That would have been the right

thing.”). In support, the trial court has invoked In re Adoption of R.J.S.,

889 A.2d 92 (Pa.Super. 2005), wherein this Court affirmed a trial court’s

vacatur of an adoption decree based upon flagrant misrepresentations that

occurred during the underlying adoption proceedings.

      In R.J.S., a maternal aunt and uncle had primary physical custody of a

child, while the child’s paternal grandparents had partial physical custody,

pursuant to an order entered following a “comprehensive custody evaluation”

and hearing. See id. at 93-94. Without providing notice to the grandparents,

the aunt and uncle filed a petition to adopt the child.    During the ensuing

                                     - 15 -
J-A20038-23

proceedings, the maternal aunt and uncle made key omissions in their

representations to the adoption court, which resulted in the court never

learning of the paternal grandparents’ ongoing custody rights or relationship

with the child. Id. at 94-95. Although an adoption decree was entered, the

adoption court vacated it after concluding that the paternal grandparents “had

been entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings[.]” Id. at 95.

      On appeal, this Court affirmed the vacatur of the adoption decree after

finding that the misrepresentations during the adoption proceedings had

effectively deprived the adoption court of an opportunity to determine what

parties were entitled to notice pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2721. R.J.S., 889

A.2d at 97. Furthermore, this Court held the failure to ensure that paternal

grandparents had an opportunity to participate in the adoption proceedings

had implications with respect to the “best interests” of the child, which

undermined confidence in the validity of the adoption determination. Id. at

98.

      Concomitantly, we also must acknowledge that Pennsylvania precedent

provides that, in the context of adoption, “‘a child’s interests are best served

when all those who demonstrate an interest in the child’s welfare are allowed

to be heard.’” In re Adoption of J.E.F., 864 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa.Super.

2004) (quoting In re Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa. 218, 608 A.2d 10, 15

(1992)). To that end, this Court has vacated adoption decrees where parties

                                     - 16 -
J-A20038-23

with custody interests are denied an opportunity to participate in the

proceedings. See R.J.S., supra, at 98-99; J.E.F., supra, at 1211.

       There is a critical distinction, however, between these cases and the

instant controversy – any arguable question concerning the validity of the

adoption decrees pertaining to the Children are not presently before this Court

for adjudication.8 Rather, this appeal lies exclusively from the custody court’s

November 28, 2022, order, which imposed immediate sanctions upon

Appellants in connection with civil contempt. As recited above, neither of the

contempt-related orders entered in this case contained any directive that

purported to alter the validity or legal effect of the adoption decrees.

       Indeed, the custody court acknowledged as much during the November

10, 2022, sanctions hearing, as follows:

       THE COURT: [T]his is a contempt proceeding. I’ve tried to – I
       tried to make this that I could adjust proceeding where the right
       thing would be done to give someone the opportunity to give
       [Grandparents] visitation, to allow that to happen, and we could
       avoid contempt.

       [GRANDPARENTS’ COUNSEL]: Right.

       THE COURT: That didn’t happen.              So, it’s simply a contempt
       petition, a contempt proceeding….

____________________________________________

8  As discussed in the factual summary supra, Grandparents filed a petition in
the adoption court seeking to intervene, vacate the adoption decrees, and
transfer the adoption proceedings to the custody court. See N.T., 8/31/21,
at 28-32. This motion, presumably, provided a potential avenue for the relief
suggested by the custody court. However, Grandparents voluntarily withdrew
it. See id.

                                          - 17 -
J-A20038-23

N.T., 11/10/22, at 22-23.

       There is simply no dispute that the order in question in this appeal does

not touch upon the Children’s adoption decrees. To the extent the custody

court is now inviting this Court to reach beyond the scope of the order

appealed from by Appellants and sua sponte vacate the Children’s respective

adoption decrees, we must decline to do so as a matter of justiciability.9

Limiting our review, as we must, to the narrow question of civil contempt, we

will assess solely whether Grandparents adequately established the necessary

elements of civil contempt as to Appellants. See Gross, supra, at 489.

       In discussing civil contempt, this Court has emphasized:

       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. The
____________________________________________

9  Another crucial distinction between the cases cited above and the instant
matter is that there are no indications that the adoption court was misled
concerning the Grandparents’ status or existence. To the contrary, Attorney
Denaro presented a summary of the procedural history concerning
Grandparents’ involvement with the Children, which accurately apprised the
adoption court that: (1) Grandparents had repeatedly sought to serve as a
kinship placement for the Children and had been denied; (2) Grandparents’
visitations with the Children had been suspended in December 2020 based
upon a therapeutic recommendation that was credited by Judge Sprecher; (3)
Grandparents had initiated a custody action that was pending at the time of
the adoption proceedings; and (4) although Grandparents were generally
aware that the Agency was moving forward with the Children’s permanency
goal, i.e., adoption, they had not been explicitly notified of the adoption
proceedings instituted by Adoptive Parents. See CYS Exhibit 3 at 2; N.T.,
8/31/21, at 5-39. Thereafter, the adoption court declined to direct that notice
be provided to Grandparents as contemplated by Section 2721. Thus, there
is no indication that the adoption court was unaware of the relevant
circumstances.

                                          - 18 -
J-A20038-23

      complaining party has the burden of proving by a preponderance
      of evidence that a party violated a court order[.]

Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa.Super. 2001). See Marian Shop,

Inc. v. Baird, 670 A.2d 671, 673 (Pa.Super. 1996) (“In order to support a

finding of contempt, the order or decree which the contemnor has been held

to have violated must be definite, clear, and specific – leaving no doubt or

uncertainty in the mind of the contemnor of the prohibited conduct.”

(emphasis in original)).

      As recited above, the two purported contempt orders issued in this case

were filed on October 18, 2021, and November 28, 2022, respectively. We

note that there is no allegation that Appellants were in violation of an existing

court order in October 2021, as required for a finding of civil contempt under

Pennsylvania law. See Garr, supra, at 189. In the absence of a colorable

violation of a court order, a finding of civil contempt would not be possible.

See id.; Baird, supra, at 673. Rather than a finding of contempt, we view

the custody court’s October 18, 2021, order as merely setting the stage for

future proceedings by ordering Appellants to negotiate and institute an

“agreed visitation schedule” that would award Grandparents some manner of

rights to the Children. See Order, 10/18/21, at 1. See also Encarnacion,

supra, at 3.     Under this order, sanctions for contempt would only be

considered if the parties failed to execute such an agreement.

      As detailed above, Appellants did not comply with this directive, and the

custody court made a finding of contempt and imposed monetary sanctions in

                                     - 19 -
J-A20038-23

the November 28, 2022, order.       See Order, 11/28/22, at 1-2.       From the

language in the order, it is clear that the custody court predicated its contempt

findings upon Appellants’ failure to comply with the October 18, 2021, order.

See id. at 1-2 (noting that these proceedings sounded in contempt and

Appellants had failed to negotiate a custody agreement with Grandparents as

ordered by the custody court).

      However, it is well-established that “[t]o impose civil contempt the trial

court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the totality of

evidence presented that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with

the order” they are alleged to have violated. Garr, supra, at 189. Instantly,

it is beyond cavil that the Children implicated in these custody proceedings

had already been adopted when the custody court ordered Appellants to

negotiate a custody or visitation schedule with respect to Grandparents. As a

consequence of the Children’s adoption, Grandparents could no longer seek

any custody rights as to the Children as a matter of Pennsylvania law. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326 (providing that “[a]ny rights to seek physical custody or

legal custody rights” are “automatically terminated” upon adoption). As this

Court has explained, “[a] decree of adoption…severs the child entirely from

its own family tree and engrafts it upon its new parentage.” R.J.S., supra,

at 100 n.7. We also emphasize that a decree of adoption “terminates the

natural grandparents’ visitation rights[.]” Id.

                                     - 20 -
J-A20038-23

      Thus, at the time Appellants were ordered to begin negotiations,

Grandparents had no legal basis under which they could be awarded custody

or visitation.   Furthermore, following the adoption decree, the Agency no

longer had legal custody of the Children and possessed no ability to directly

control or impact custody of the Children in a meaningful way.

      We discern that the only avenue by which Grandparents could arguably

obtain legal visitation with the Children is by the execution of a post-adoption

contact agreement (“PACA”), which provides “an option for adoptive parents

and birth relatives to enter into a voluntary agreement for ongoing

communication or contact[.]” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2731. However, it is a matter of

record that Adoptive Parents are unwilling to enter into such an agreement

with Grandparents. See N.T., 8/31/21, at 11 (Attorney Denaro reporting that

her clients, Adoptive Parents, refuse to consent to the execution of a PACA).

Given Adoptive Parents’ refusal to consent, any PACA that was prospectively

negotiated between Appellants and Grandparents in service to the custody

court’s October 18, 2021, order would not be approvable. See 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2735(b)(1) (mandating that a PACA be “entered into knowingly and

voluntarily by all parties” as a prerequisite to its court approval). See also,

e.g., Faust v. Messinger, 497 A.2d 1351, 1353-54 (Pa.Super. 1985)

(“[A]doptive or natural parents should have the right to select the persons

with whom their child will associate as long as they properly perform their

                                     - 21 -
J-A20038-23

duties to the child. To take this right away from proper parents would not be

for the best interests of the child.”).

      Based upon the foregoing, we find that the custody court abused its

discretion and legally erred by finding Appellants in civil contempt for violating

an order that was not capable of fulfillment. As discussed above, the record

is clear that Grandparents had no legal standing to seek custody in their own

right, and Adoptive Parents were not willing to gratuitously grant them any

analogous rights. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326; N.T., 8/31/21, at 11. Appellants

were effectively ordered to undertake what amounted to a fool’s errand – to

secure visitation rights for Grandparents in the absence of any legal

mechanism with which to do so.

      Instantly, the custody court’s findings of civil contempt and imposition

of sanctions were predicated upon Appellants’ purported failure to comply with

this impossible provision of its order.        See Order, 11/28/22, at 1-2.

Accordingly, we reverse the findings of contempt and the sanctions imposed

upon Appellants. See, e.g., Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.3d 1005, 1009-10

(Pa.Super. 1995) (“[A] showing of non-compliance is not sufficient in itself to

prove contempt….A court cannot impose a coercive sentence conditioned on

the contemnor’s performance of an act which is incapable of performance.”

(citations and quotation marks omitted)).

                                      - 22 -
J-A20038-23

       Based upon our resolution of Appellants’ first claim for relief, we need

not address the remainder of their issues.10

       Order reversed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/16/2023

____________________________________________

10   The custody court’s November 28, 2022, order contemplates further
proceedings and essentially promises to enter an order in Grandparents’ favor.
See Order, 11/28/22, at ¶ 3 (“In the event that no mediation order is entered
by January 2, 2023, this court will be entering an order for custody/visitation
upon praecipe of plaintiff’s counsel.”). We express no opinion on the potential
validity of such an order, as it is not presently before us for consideration.
However, we caution the custody court that “[i]t is settled that an adjudication
of contempt is not a proper basis to modify an existing custody arrangement.”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa.Super. 2017). Furthermore, an award
of custody rights is not one of the enumerated sanctions permitted in the
context of contempt proceedings. Cf. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g)(1)(i)-(v).

                                          - 23 -