J-S34033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
A.M.H., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
M.D.T.,
Appellant No. 185 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered December 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Domestic Relations at No.: 2010-28682
Appellant No. 203 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered December 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No.: 2010-28682
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2017
In these consolidated cases1, M.D.T. (Mother) appeals two orders of
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) entered on ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S34033-17
December 15, 2016. The first order awarded A.M.H. (Father) periods of
partial physical custody of I.T. (Child) in either the State of Indiana or the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The second order denied Mother’s petition
for contempt against Father. We affirm.
Mother and Father were never married, but lived together from 2005
until 2008, while Mother was the au pair for the children of Father and his
wife, D.H. Mother became pregnant with Child during this time. Father
remains married to D.H. Father lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana with D.H. and
five of their children of varying ages. Mother lives in Harleysville,
Pennsylvania with her fiancé.
The parties’ first custody order was entered by agreement on
December 23, 2010. It granted the parties joint legal custody, and awarded
Mother primary physical custody and Father partial physical for one weekend
every month in Pennsylvania. It also provided, "Father shall not introduce
[Child] to members of his extended family until otherwise agreed or further
Court Order." (Order, 12/23/10, at ¶ 5).
Father filed a petition to modify custody on June 22, 2011. On
February 8, 2012, following a protracted hearing, the trial court entered an
order maintaining shared legal custody and primary physical custody in
Mother with Father having partial physical custody of Child one weekend per
_______________________ (Footnote Continued) 1 This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte, on February 6, 2017.
-2- J-S34033-17
month in Pennsylvania. It also provided that D.H. and Child were not to
have a relationship due to D.H.’s history of mental illness.
Mother filed an emergency petition to modify custody and an
emergency petition for contempt on August 21, 2013, in which she alleged
that Father took Child to Indiana without informing her and in which she
requested sole legal custody and sought restrictions on Father’s visitation.
Father filed answers and counterclaims on September 16, 2013, requesting
a modification of the existing custody order to provide him with additional
visitation during the summer. Father also filed an emergency petition for
contempt on October 7, 2013, alleging that Mother unilaterally prohibited
him from exercising physical custody of Child and requesting make up
custodial time.
On October 18, 2013, the trial court ordered the parties to comply with
its order of February 8, 2012. On January 21, 2014, the trial court issued a
temporary order providing that the February 8, 2012, order was to continue
with a modification allowing Father’s visitation to take place in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, or Indiana, provided he notified Mother.
The trial court modified the February 8, 2012, order on February 27,
2014. The modified order provided shared legal custody, with Mother
maintaining primary physical custody and Father having partial physical
custody of Child during spring break; a two-week period of extended
custodial time during the summer in July and August; and the last weekend
of each month, Friday until Sunday, during the months Father does not have
-3- J-S34033-17
an extended visit scheduled with Child. Additionally, the trial court ordered
that Child may only be in the presence of D.H. when another adult is
present; that Child shall never be left unsupervised with D.H. under any
circumstances; and that, should Child ever be permitted to spend
unsupervised time with D.H., Father will forfeit his rights to visitation in
Indiana.
Father filed a petition for contempt on March 22, 2016, alleging that
Mother would not allow him to pick Child up during his scheduled spring
break visitation. Mother filed a petition to modify custody and a petition for
contempt on May 5, 2016. Mother’s petition to modify sought sole legal
custody of Child and a change in the visitation schedule. Mother’s petition
for contempt alleged that Father left Child alone with D.H. with no other
adult present to supervise, in violation of the February 27, 2014 order.
Father filed a petition to modify custody on June 20, 2016, seeking
extended visits in the summer, an additional winter break, and for the trial
court to lift the restrictions concerning D.H. imposed in the February 27,
2014, order. Mother filed an answer and counterclaim for contempt on June
21, 2016. Father filed an emergency petition for special relief on August 2,
2016, alleging that Mother was denying his Indiana visit. Mother filed an
answer and response on August 3, 2016. The trial court resolved Father’s
petition for special relief and Mother’s answer in an order entered August 3,
2016.
-4- J-S34033-17
The trial court held a hearing on the remaining pleadings on November
29, 2016, and entered the orders appealed from on December 15, 2016.
Mother filed her notices of appeal and statements of errors complained of on
appeal on January 5, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).2
Mother presents the following issues for our review:
1. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in granting joint legal custody to [Father], as said determination was not supported by the evidence presented[?]
2. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in granting [Father] partial physical custody in Indiana, as said determination was not supported by the evidence presented[?]
3. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in allowing for [D.H.] to be in the presence of [Child], thus endangering [Child][?]
4. [Whether] [t]he [trial court’s] allowance of [D.H.] in the presence of [Child], even supervised, is not in the best interests or welfare of [Child][?]
5. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in applying the custody factors found at 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5328 in determining the best interests of [Child][?]
6. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] as a matter of law in denying the contempt petition of [Mother] filed on May 5, 2016, as the [trial court] did find in its Findings of Facts, at factor 12, that [Father] was in violation of the prior court orders[?]
(Mother’s Brief, at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). ____________________________________________
2 The trial court entered a Rule 1925(a) opinion on February 10, 2017, referring this Court to its Findings of Fact issued on December 15, 2016, and to its supplementary opinion, also entered on February 10, 2017, for the reasons for its orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).
-5- J-S34033-17
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S34033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
A.M.H., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
M.D.T.,
Appellant No. 185 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered December 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Domestic Relations at No.: 2010-28682
Appellant No. 203 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered December 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No.: 2010-28682
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2017
In these consolidated cases1, M.D.T. (Mother) appeals two orders of
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) entered on ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S34033-17
December 15, 2016. The first order awarded A.M.H. (Father) periods of
partial physical custody of I.T. (Child) in either the State of Indiana or the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The second order denied Mother’s petition
for contempt against Father. We affirm.
Mother and Father were never married, but lived together from 2005
until 2008, while Mother was the au pair for the children of Father and his
wife, D.H. Mother became pregnant with Child during this time. Father
remains married to D.H. Father lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana with D.H. and
five of their children of varying ages. Mother lives in Harleysville,
Pennsylvania with her fiancé.
The parties’ first custody order was entered by agreement on
December 23, 2010. It granted the parties joint legal custody, and awarded
Mother primary physical custody and Father partial physical for one weekend
every month in Pennsylvania. It also provided, "Father shall not introduce
[Child] to members of his extended family until otherwise agreed or further
Court Order." (Order, 12/23/10, at ¶ 5).
Father filed a petition to modify custody on June 22, 2011. On
February 8, 2012, following a protracted hearing, the trial court entered an
order maintaining shared legal custody and primary physical custody in
Mother with Father having partial physical custody of Child one weekend per
_______________________ (Footnote Continued) 1 This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte, on February 6, 2017.
-2- J-S34033-17
month in Pennsylvania. It also provided that D.H. and Child were not to
have a relationship due to D.H.’s history of mental illness.
Mother filed an emergency petition to modify custody and an
emergency petition for contempt on August 21, 2013, in which she alleged
that Father took Child to Indiana without informing her and in which she
requested sole legal custody and sought restrictions on Father’s visitation.
Father filed answers and counterclaims on September 16, 2013, requesting
a modification of the existing custody order to provide him with additional
visitation during the summer. Father also filed an emergency petition for
contempt on October 7, 2013, alleging that Mother unilaterally prohibited
him from exercising physical custody of Child and requesting make up
custodial time.
On October 18, 2013, the trial court ordered the parties to comply with
its order of February 8, 2012. On January 21, 2014, the trial court issued a
temporary order providing that the February 8, 2012, order was to continue
with a modification allowing Father’s visitation to take place in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, or Indiana, provided he notified Mother.
The trial court modified the February 8, 2012, order on February 27,
2014. The modified order provided shared legal custody, with Mother
maintaining primary physical custody and Father having partial physical
custody of Child during spring break; a two-week period of extended
custodial time during the summer in July and August; and the last weekend
of each month, Friday until Sunday, during the months Father does not have
-3- J-S34033-17
an extended visit scheduled with Child. Additionally, the trial court ordered
that Child may only be in the presence of D.H. when another adult is
present; that Child shall never be left unsupervised with D.H. under any
circumstances; and that, should Child ever be permitted to spend
unsupervised time with D.H., Father will forfeit his rights to visitation in
Indiana.
Father filed a petition for contempt on March 22, 2016, alleging that
Mother would not allow him to pick Child up during his scheduled spring
break visitation. Mother filed a petition to modify custody and a petition for
contempt on May 5, 2016. Mother’s petition to modify sought sole legal
custody of Child and a change in the visitation schedule. Mother’s petition
for contempt alleged that Father left Child alone with D.H. with no other
adult present to supervise, in violation of the February 27, 2014 order.
Father filed a petition to modify custody on June 20, 2016, seeking
extended visits in the summer, an additional winter break, and for the trial
court to lift the restrictions concerning D.H. imposed in the February 27,
2014, order. Mother filed an answer and counterclaim for contempt on June
21, 2016. Father filed an emergency petition for special relief on August 2,
2016, alleging that Mother was denying his Indiana visit. Mother filed an
answer and response on August 3, 2016. The trial court resolved Father’s
petition for special relief and Mother’s answer in an order entered August 3,
2016.
-4- J-S34033-17
The trial court held a hearing on the remaining pleadings on November
29, 2016, and entered the orders appealed from on December 15, 2016.
Mother filed her notices of appeal and statements of errors complained of on
appeal on January 5, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).2
Mother presents the following issues for our review:
1. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in granting joint legal custody to [Father], as said determination was not supported by the evidence presented[?]
2. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in granting [Father] partial physical custody in Indiana, as said determination was not supported by the evidence presented[?]
3. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in allowing for [D.H.] to be in the presence of [Child], thus endangering [Child][?]
4. [Whether] [t]he [trial court’s] allowance of [D.H.] in the presence of [Child], even supervised, is not in the best interests or welfare of [Child][?]
5. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] and abuse[d] [its] discretion in applying the custody factors found at 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5328 in determining the best interests of [Child][?]
6. [Whether] [t]he [trial court] [] err[ed] as a matter of law in denying the contempt petition of [Mother] filed on May 5, 2016, as the [trial court] did find in its Findings of Facts, at factor 12, that [Father] was in violation of the prior court orders[?]
(Mother’s Brief, at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). ____________________________________________
2 The trial court entered a Rule 1925(a) opinion on February 10, 2017, referring this Court to its Findings of Fact issued on December 15, 2016, and to its supplementary opinion, also entered on February 10, 2017, for the reasons for its orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).
-5- J-S34033-17
We have examined the opinions and Findings of Fact entered by the
trial court on February 10, 2017 and December 15, 2016, in light of the
record in this matter, and we are satisfied that, taken together, they are a
complete and correct analysis of this case.3 Accordingly, we affirm the
orders Mother appeals from on the basis of the trial court’s opinions and
Findings of Fact.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/7/2017
____________________________________________
3 We note that Mother’s brief is deficient because, although she purports to raise six distinct issues on appeal, she fails to develop them separately as such in the argument section of her brief, in violation of our appellate rules. (See Mother’s Brief, at 4, 6-12 (combining six issues into two overarching issues)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2119(a); Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.”) (citations omitted). Although we could find waiver of most of Mother’s issues on this basis, see Pa.R.A.P. 2101, we decline to do so, in the interest of judicial economy.
-6- Circulated 06/28/2017 10:52 AM Circulated 06/28/2017 10:52 AM