Boggs, L. v. Murray, C.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 14, 2023
• Docket: 1090 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S44007-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LAURA BOGGS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : CODY MURRAY : No. 1090 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered July 8, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-01963

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED MARCH 14, 2023

Laura Boggs (“Mother”) appeals, pro se, from the custody order entered

on July 1, 2022,1 granting Cody Murray (“Father”) temporary sole legal and

physical custody of their minor daughter (“Child,” born in 2018). Because we

conclude that Mother’s appeal is interlocutory, we quash.

This custody action originated in Franklin County in 2019 and has

involved an extensive number of filings and conciliation conferences. Most

recently, in April 2022, Mother and Father entered a shared custody

agreement and agreed to continue conciliation.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1The trial court issued the order following the July 1, 2022 hearing. The order was docketed on July 8, 2022. J-S44007-22

Father later filed a petition for contempt of the April 2022 custody order,

claiming that Mother failed to return Child to Father for his periods of physical

custody. On June 14, 2022, Father filed an emergency petition for special relief

arguing Mother had become increasingly hostile and refused to appear for

custody exchanges. Following conciliation, the parties could not reach an

agreement, and the conciliator noted concerns with Mother’s behavior. See

id. at 3.

The trial court conducted a hearing on Father’s petitions for contempt

and emergency special relief on July 1, 2022. The court subsequently entered

an order, which, in part, granted Father “temporary sole legal and physical

custody with no visitation with Mother whatsoever.” Order, 7/8/22, at ¶ 1.

Further, the trial court ordered Mother to undergo a risk of harm evaluation

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5329 (Consideration of criminal conviction). See

id. at ¶ 2. Finally, while the court found Mother to be in contempt of several

orders, it declined to impose any sanctions, but provided Father an

opportunity to seek attorneys’ fees through a future petition. See id. at ¶ 5.

The trial court scheduled a status hearing for September 6, 2022. See id. at

p. 3.

On July 19, 2022, Mother filed a motion for reconsideration, which the

trial court denied. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

We first address the appealability of the trial court’s July 1, 2022 order,

as appealability implicates this Court’s jurisdiction. See Interest of J.M., 219

-2- J-S44007-22

A.3d 645, 650 (Pa. Super. 2019). “[A]n appeal properly lies only from a final

order unless otherwise permitted by rule or statute.” G.B. v. M.M.B., 670

A.2d 714, 717 (Pa. Super. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted). Most

commonly, a final order is one that “disposes of all claims and of all parties[.]”

Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).

Recognizing that custody proceedings involve a distinct set of policy

concerns, this Court has explained that “a custody order will be considered

final and appealable only if it is both: 1) entered after the court has completed

its hearings on the merits; and 2) intended by the court to constitute a

complete resolution of the custody claims pending between the parties.” G.B.,

670 A.2d at 720.

Here, the trial court had neither completed a hearing on the merits nor

intended the order to constitute a complete resolution of the custody claims.

The pertinent hearing dealt with Father’s petitions for contempt and for

emergency special relief based on Mother’s actions. The order itself specifically

grants Father “temporary sole legal and physical custody.” Order, 7/8/22, ¶

1. The trial court noted its concerns about Mother’s mental health and

explained it did not intend “to permanently deprive Mother of Child, but to

facilitate a wholesome, social, emotional environment where both parents can

co-parent.” Id. at ¶ 7. While the court did find Mother to be in contempt, see

id. at ¶ 5, that finding is not appealable until the court imposes sanctions

pursuant to the contempt. See Foulk v. Foulk, 789 A.2d 254, 258 (Pa. Super.

-3- J-S44007-22

2001) (en banc) (“[F]or a contempt order to be properly appealable, it is only

necessary that the order impose sanctions on the alleged contemnor, and that

no further court order be required before the sanctions take effect.”).

Moreover, the trial court scheduled an additional status hearing, to take place

two months later, to allow time for Mother to proceed with the risk of harm

assessment and any necessary therapy. See Order, 7/8/22, at pp. 1-3.

Therefore, it is clear that the order granting Father temporary sole

physical and legal custody, addressing the contempt allegations, and directing

further action by Mother is not final and appealable. See G.B., 670 A.2d at

720 (custody order was not final and appealable where it was intended to

direct the parties’ custody arrangement while the court assessed the ultimate

issues and the court had scheduled further review). We quash Mother’s

appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 03/14/2023

-4-