Bowman, S. v. Bowman, J.

Opinion

J-S33002-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

SHANNON C. BOWMAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : JON S. BOWMAN : No. 198 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 10, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-00825

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 01, 2024

Appellant, Shannon C. Bowman (“Mother”) appeals from the January

10, 2024 order granting Jon S. Bowman’s (“Father”) request for their son,

I.W.B. (the “Child”), to obtain a United States’ passport and denying Mother’s

petition for contempt of court. We affirm.

“This matter has a lengthy and tortuous procedural history.” S.C.B. v.

J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 908 (Pa. Super. 2019) (prior appeal involving domestic

issues raised by identical parties).

Briefly, we note the parties were married in October [] 2013, but separated shortly after the [Child’s birth]. Mother initially filed a complaint for custody on February 11, 2016. Since that time, the trial court has conducted three custody trials and resolved numerous emergency and contempt petitions filed by both parties. The most recent custody trial was conducted on November 17 and 30, 2021, and resulted in an amended custody order and parenting plan issued on January 27, 2022, which was amended again on February 11, 2022, after Father filed a motion for reconsideration. To describe this matter as contentious is an understatement. Indeed, [a] recent order J-S33002-24

includes a schedule for [the] Child's haircuts because the parties cannot, or will not, agree on how [the] Child should style his hair.

Bowman v. Bowman, 2022 WL 17258587 at *1 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(non-precedential decision) (footnote and internal citations omitted) (prior

appeal involving domestic issues raised by identical parties).

The trial court explained the procedural history giving rise to the instant

appeal as follows:

Beginning in May 2023, the parties began filing a barrage of requests with both the assigned Parenting Coordinator, Lori Seratelli, Esquire, and [the trial court]. On May 25, 2023, Father petitioned [the court] for special relief seeking an order for Mother to enroll in therapy at the request of [the] Child’s therapist to address “enmeshment issues.” That issue was later resolved when Mother did, in fact, enroll in therapy. On May 26, 2023, the Parenting Coordinator issued a report and recommendation regarding [Father’s request for the issuance of a passport for the Child and the appointment, at Mother’s request, of a new therapist for the Child]. Both parents [challenged the Parenting Coordinator’s recommendations by requesting] a de novo hearing on the issues. Additionally, on May 30, 2023, Mother filed a petition for contempt against Father asserting three counts: (1) that Father unilaterally took [the] Child out of school early on the day of his wedding so that [the] Child could participate in Father's wedding photos; (2) that Father did not give Mother adequate notice of his 2022 vacation to Kansas; and (3) that Father unilaterally enrolled [the] Child in his health insurance policy. The de novo hearing and the hearing on Mother’s contempt petition were scheduled for August 16, 2023, and later continued to November 3, 2023 at Father’s request.

On September 8, 2023, Father filed a petition for special relief seeking the disclosure of Mother’s therapist, which [the trial court] initially denied[,] but was renewed orally by Father and ruled moot when Mother disclosed the therapist's name at the January 8, 2024 hearing. On September 12, 2023, the Parenting Coordinator filed another report and recommendation

-2- J-S33002-24

regarding [the] Child’s haircuts and Father's use of two email addresses. Father requested a de novo hearing as to both issues, and the de novo hearing was scheduled along with the other de novo hearing and hearing for contempt on November 3, 2023.

On September 27, 2023 Mother secured new counsel and filed an additional petition for contempt, alleging two additional counts: (1) that Father did not adequately inform Mother of the address and telephone number where [the] Child would be able to be reached during his “staycation,” in July 2023; and (2) that Father unilaterally signed [the] Child up for a golf camp during his custodial period, and permitted his wife, Janna Bowman, to sign the required waiver. Mother’s contempt petition was also added to the hearing on November 3, 2023, which was continued to January 8, 2024 at the request of Mother.

The parties appeared before [the trial court] on January 8, 2024 to address the above-listed filings.

***

The majority of the hearing . . . focused on whether [the] Child’s current therapist, Pamela Moran, was appropriate. [Eventually, however, the hearing moved on to address Father’s request for a United States passport for the Child and Mother’s petition for contempt of court against Father].

[Ultimately, the trial court] heard argument from counsel specifically regarding the intent required to hold a party in contempt, after which, [the court] took the matters under advisement. [The trial court] issued an order on January 9, 2024, ordering Mother [to] cooperate in obtaining a passport for [the] Child, and finding that Father did not possess the required wrongful intent to find him in contempt.

-3- J-S33002-24

Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/24, at 1-6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). This

timely appeal followed.1

Mother raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the [trial c]ourt commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed some of the contempt issues and did [not] specifically rule on all of them?

2. Did the [trial c]ourt commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion [in] deciding not to adjudge Father in contempt when that decision is not supported by evidence [of] record?

3. Did the [trial c]ourt commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion by ordering Mother to sign a Department of State consent form stating [that her] consent [was] unconditional with regards to passport validity and travel?

4. Did the [trial c]ourt commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in granting Father’s request to obtain a passport book and passport card for [the] Child over Mother’s objection and despite the entirety of record since this case began and without putting into place reasonable child safety measures requested by Mother?

Mother’s Brief at 8. ____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s January 10, 2024 ruling constituted a final order, appealable

as of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (general rule) and (b) (definition of final order). First, it fully disposed of the Mother’s claim regarding the Child’s therapist, which Mother does not contest on appeal. Second, it completely addressed Father’s request to issue a United States’ passport and passport card for the Child, as no further hearings or proceedings were scheduled to address the matter. See G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (explaining that a custody order is final and appealable after the trial court has concluded its hearings on the matter and the resultant order resolves the pending custody claims between the parties). Third, the trial court adjudicated Father not in contempt of its February 11, 2022 custody order. See Schultz v. Schultz, 70 A.3d 826, 828-829 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explaining that an order denying a contempt petition is final and appealable when it denies a party relief to which it claims entitlement pursuant to a prior final order).

-4- J-S33002-24

We adhere to the following standards:

We review a trial court's determination in a custody case for an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the evidence. We defer to the trial judge regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence. The trial judge's deductions or inferences from its factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may reject the trial court's conclusions only if they involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings.

S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).

Further,

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.

In order to establish that a party is in civil contempt, there must be proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the contemnor had notice of the specific order that he or she is alleged to have disobeyed, that the act that constituted the contemnor's violation was volitional, and that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

Thompson v. Thompson, 187 A.3d 259, 263 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation

omitted), aff'd, 223 A.3d 1272 (Pa. 2020).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Matthew

P. Smith. We conclude that Mother is not entitled to relief in this case for the

reasons expressed in Judge Smith’s May 8, 2024 opinion. Therefore, we affirm

-5- J-S33002-24

based on Judge Smith’s May 8, 2024 opinion and adopt it as our own. In any

future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party

shall attach copies of Judge Smith’s May 8, 2024 opinion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/01/2024

-6- 201 C,gaed%p812D24 1•13 PANT e 1

SHANNON C. BOWMAN., : THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

V. No. 201.6-04825 CIVIL •TERM

JON S.- BOWMAN ; Defendant :CUSTODY

OPINION PURSUANT TO.PA.R.A.P. 1925(a):

Smith,J., May % 2424

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal:arises from this. Court's Order dated January 9, 2024 regarding the issuance of a. passport for the above=captioned parties' minor Child, I.W.B. (YOB 2Q14•("Child"), and Mother's petition for contempt of court.against Father.' This :Court has prepared anumber of lengthy opinions: in relation to this matter since August 2020,. and we specifically refer this Honorable Appellate Court to.our previous Opinions dated August•3, 2020, January. 27, 2022, and June 17, 2022:2 For the purposes of this Opinion, we will focus on the factual and procedural history of this matter related specifically to. Mother's instant-appeal.

On January 27, 2022, this Court issued an amended parenting plan with an accompanying opinion, co .ncernting the parties' legal and physical custody., which was. later slightly amended on February 11., 2022 to include the payment schedule for the Child's.. therapist: Mother appealed this Court's ruling as to the payment.of • said fees, and the Order was everitually affirmed by this Honorable Appellate Court on November 29; 2022. 3 The parties have. been operating under the February, 11, 2022 Order (hereinafter " Custody Order ") si nee .that date:

Beginning in ' .May 2023, the parties begari filing abarrage of requests with both the assigned Parenting Coordinator, Lori Seratelli, Esquire, and this Court. On May 25,

iThe hearing*also concerned Mother's request to appoint anew therapist for I.W.B. ;but she is not .appealing this Court's ruling as to that issue:

2We bel ieve, how.&er,*tha tthis: Honorable Appellate Court is familiar w.ith'the facts of this case ,having entered rulings in Mother's appeals docketed at 636 MDA 2017, S_C.B. v. J.S.B., 298 A.3d 905 ( Pa. Super: 20'[7), and 447 MDA 2022 .

3 See Non-Precedential Decision,. Shannon C. Bowrrian v. Jon S. BoWman,:447 MDA 2022 ( November 28, 2022):

Page 1of 15 2416-00826-0476 OPINION, Page 2

2023., Father Petitioned this Court for Special Relief seeking. an order for Mother to enroll in therapyaf the request of Ghild's.therapist to address "enmeshment. issues:" That issue was later resolved when Mother did, in fact, enroll in therapy. Cn May 26, 2023, the Parenting* Coordinator issued areport and recommendation regarding the , issuance of a passport for Child at. Father's.request and Mother's request to•appoint.a new therapist for Child. Both parents requested a. de nova hearing on .the issues.. Additionally, on May 30 ;2023 ;Mother fled apetition for contempt against Father asserting *three counts: (1) that Father unilaterally took Child out of school early on the day"of his wedding so that Child could participate in Father's.wedding photos; (2):that l=ather did not give Mother adequate notice of his 2022 vacation to Kansas; and .(3) that Father unilaterally enrolled Child in his health insurance policy. The de novo hearing and the hearing on Mother's contempt petition were scheduled for.August -1C, 2023,.and later continued to November 3,-2023.at Father's request.

On September 8, 2023, Father filed .apetition for special relief seeking the disclosure of Mother's therapist, which was initially denied by this Court, but was renewed orally by Father and ruled moot When* Mother disclosed the therapist's name at the January 8,:2024. hearing. On September•12, 2023, the Parenting Coordinator filed. another report and recommendation regarding Child's haircuts and Father's use of two email addresses. Father requested.a de novo hearing as to both issues, -and the rye novo hearing was scheduled along withAhe other de novo hearing and hearing for contempt on November 3, 2023.

On September 27, 2023 Mother secured new counsel and filed an additional. petition for contempt, alleging two additional counts: ( 1) that Father did not adequately inform Mother of the address and telephone*number where Child would be able to be reached 'during his "staycation," in July 2023; and .(2) that Father unilaterally signed Child up for agolf camp during his :custodial period, and "permitted his wife, Janna Bowman, to sign the required waiver. Mother's contempt petition was also added to the hearing on November 3, 2023, which was continued to .January 8, 2024 at the request. o€ Mother.

The parties appeared before this Court on January 8; 2024 to address the above- listed flings. This Court first. interviewed Child in chambers to ascertain how the current con€licts.have been affecting him. Child. essentially reported that: he wished his parents listened to him more and that he got to make more of his.own decisions. The conflict between the parents is* palpable. for Child, the current example being Child's:most recent interview with..Gail Souders., Esquire, the guardian ad lifein (hereinafter "the

aThis Honorable: Appellate Court .may be familiar with the..haircut. schedule discussed at length in the: . . January 27, 2022: Opinion and attached to the subsequent parenting plans as Exhibit G.

Page 2of 1.5 2016-00825-0.476 oPiNiON, Page 3

GAL"). When Mother brought him t othe GAL's office,Father unexpectedly arrived at the same. time. Child became very upset because he was afraid that there would be:an incident between his parents while he was talking to the GAL because they were in her waiting' room unsupervised.e• Child stated that he likes speaking with atherapist to help. assuag& his.fedrs regarding the conflict..

The..majorlty of the hearing :after Child's interview was focused: on whether Child's current therapist, ' Pamela Moran,was appropriate.This Court.. Ultimately ruled that Child should remain in therapy with Ms.Moran as he had established arapport with her. Mother is not contesting this ruling on appeal.

The hearing next moved ' to the issue of Father' srequest to obtain aUnited States Passport for Child so that he could take Child on a* Disney Cruise vacation with ? The parties presented the issue to the Parenting Coordinator, his extended family. after which the Parenting Coordinator recommended that the parties obtain apassport for.C.hild:$ Father : aiso requested that Child be issued aU.S. Passport card .as well because his wife's family lives . close to the Canadian border and they may • want to drive to Canada at some point. 9 Father agreed to holding Child's . passport in the

Prothonotary' s.Cffice for safekeeping ,providing Another with S0 days' notice of international travel ,and 4. 8hours'notice of a day trip to . Canada with his wife'sfamily. 1°

Mother is vehemently opposed to. Child . obtaining aU.S. Passport. Mother acknowledged that the . Parenting Coordinator's recommendation was agood plan, but in her opinion ," apassport is an open key," because " there.is no border patrol monitoring :"" When asked to name: her specific fear with the passport, Mother stated "My fear is that this Court have the jurisdiction. to return [Childj, and Iwould have to approach the federal court ' and probably bankruptcy, hiring an international. attorney should Jon choose nbt to follow the orders on the page:Because that is: ultimately the way it would be: '12 When pressed further,. Mother alluded to the incident that occurred

sTranscript -of Proceedings ,57,. Bowman v. Bowman;No. 2016-00825 (April 16 , :2024) thereinafter "Transcript").

eTranscript at. 57.

7 Transcript at 115.

9Transcript.at 116.

aTranscript at 1'18.

DTranscript at 118-119. 7

Transcript at 131.

Page 3 of 15. 2016-00825-.0.476 OPINION, Page :4

in February 2016 prior to the -issuance of any custody order in which Father took the Child without Mother' s. permission to his father' shome in.Berks County."

Mother then stated that Father is. not forthcomirig with his:vacation plans, so she could never.truly trust his word on where he would be with Child .Mother repeatedly stated that Father " does :not follow the words on the. page."; 4 Mother stated that she believes that it is not the appropriate time to. get Child apassport because the custody situation- is " too contentious:"i 5

This Court then attempted to engage in aconversation with the parents about how trust could be established between the two of them. 1.s Mother stated that Father needs*to be mare forthcoming and give adequate notice of his plans:with Child instead. of waiting until the bare minimum time required by the: Order.Father stated - that he would like. Mother to give him. "straight. answers" to.'his questions instead of riot answering. him. and then immediately seeking the assistance of the Parenting Coordinator or this Court.The conversation degraded ,however,into a" tit-far-tat," so the hearing continued.

Mother next testified . as to. the contempt petitions that she filed.The first involved Fathees: 2u22 ' vaeation.Mother testified that Father told her on May 28,2022 that he would be. going on vacation from July 11 through 18, and that he hoped to get to Kansas: to .visit his: family. Mother then stated that Father did not provide her any further trip details until July . 9, 2b22, two days before he left, instead of the seven days required by the Otder. 17 Mot her ; also noted that Father's plans for accommodations while he was in Kansas changed also, but " that part didn't so much bother me:"• 8

Mother then testified as to her next issue for contempt,involving . Father's 2023 vacation .She stated # hat on May 18, 2023,Father told Mother that. he would be taking vacation from July 14'through 21. 19 an July. 11, 2023,Mother had not' heard from

12 Transcript:.at 132.

13 Transcript at 133'.

.j.4 Transcript at *132.

15. Trahscript.at 134.

1fi Transcript at 138-142. '

17 Transcript: at 143.

18 Tran script at 14 5.

19 Transcript at 1.45.

Page 4of 15 2016-00825-4476 OPINION, Page 5

Father about his travel. itinerary, so she asked him what his plans were. 20 Father responded that they would be spending`the week at.home and Child would be at his home every evening. 21 Mother stated that. on. July 20., 2023, Child called her while she was sleeping, and when she returned the phone. call the next morning, Father told her Child was not with him. 22 Mother stated that Child had wanted to speak to her and she would like to speak to him at that moment, to which Father replied that. she world be seeing him later that evening, so she could wait to talk to:Child:z 3 Father did riot state* where Child was,. but Mother'stated that she presumed he was with Father's wife.24

Mother stated that she did, in fact, call Father's wife, who stated that Child was at golf camp. Mather stated that Father had not . informed her of Child's enrollment in the camp,.and Father never sought Mother'spermission to do so. Mother believed that under the Order's legal custody provisions, Fatherwould have needed to obtain her permission to enroll Child in any sort of camp. Mother then contacted the camp and requested copies of the enrollment forms. * Mother testified. that Father's. Wife filled out and signed *the liability waiver and Father was listed as Child's only emergency contact. Mother stated that the receipt for payment was dated May . 18, .2023, the same day that Father told her of the dates of his vacation. Mother denied ever signing awaiver for Child without Father's permission. 2

Mother's third count for contempt involved another issue with phone calls. .Mother stated that:an August 1, 2023, Child called her, and she was unable to answer. When trying to contact. him the next day; Father stated that* he would have Child return her call and asked . for her. availability: 2 Mother waited for acall from Child, but instead,. Father later texted that Child had nat.wanted to contact. her. 2'

The next issue on cpnteinpt concerned the frequency of Child's haircuts. This Court,. however, acknowledged. that the*0rder itself contradicts the haircut schedule

28. TranscHpt at ' 146.

21 Transcript'at 146:

22 Transcript at:146.

23 Transcdptat 146,

24 Transcript at 147. 24 Transcript at 165.

26 Transcript at 148.

27 Transcript at 148_

Page 5of 15 2016-00825-0476 OPINION, Page 6

attached to Exhibit C on the Order, and so this Court..took the blame for the ambiguity and instructed the parties to only follow Exhibit C.

.Next Mother raised her issue with* Father signing Child :up for his health insurance without ,Mother's consent. The issue boiled down to apreviously addressed issue, where. Ms. Moran did not accept Mothers insurance for Child,. but she did accept Father's. Ms. Moran appeared to bill Child under Father's insurance though he was not actually.a beneficiary. The next open enrollment `cycle, Father testified that. he tried to. contact Mother about it, but she did not get back to him, so in order to keep Child's payments with his counselor low, Father added Child to nisln* surance. 2$ Mother acknowledged. receiving Father's. message, but instead of responding to him, she sent an email to the Parenting Coordinator requesting acourt decision on the matter. 29 After discussion with the Court, it. vi as ascertained that Father's insurance is merely secondary insurance, -and Mother's insurance remains primary,. which would not otherwise impact Mother, though Mother believed that Father would.seek an. adjustment with * support because he vvas: now p.r viding`irisurance coverage for Child. 3°

The last issue raised on contempt by. Mother ►nias. Father removing Child from school one flour early to attend aphoto,session for Father's* wedding. Father had been given permission. by this Court for Child to participate in all of his wedding activities, except during. the time of Child's.first reconciliation at Mother's% church. 31 Mother stated that Father did not contact her before removing Child .from schoal: 32

This. Court then heard argument from counsel specifically regarding the. intent required to hold aparty in contempt; after which, this Court took the matters under advisement. This Court issued an Order on January:9, 2024, ordering that Mother cooperate in obtaining apassport for Child,. and finding that Father did. not possess the required wrongful intent to find him in contempt:

Mother filed aMotion for Reconsideration as to both issues, which was denied. by this Court. Mother then filed atimely notice of:appeal. Mother's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal addresses four points:

28 Transcript at 189.

2• Transcript at 965.

3° Transcript at 171-172.

31Transcript at 159. See.also Order of Court In Re: Father's Motion for Reconsideration, Bowman, N 2016-00825:.(February 11., 2822)_

32 Transcript at 159.

Page Bof 15. 2016-00825-0476. aPINION, Page 7

1. Did the lower Court commit an error of law and/or -abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed .same of the contempt issues and. didn't specifically rule on all of theme

2: Did the lower Court commit an error of law and/or abuse its 0iiscretion*deciding not to adjudge Father in contemptwhen that decision is not supported by evidence in the record?

3. Did the lower Court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion by ordering Mother to sign a Department of State .consent form stating "My consent is unconditional with .regards to passport validity and tray el?."

.4. Did .the lower Court commit an error of law. - andlor abuse its discretion in granting Father's request to obtain a passport book and passport card for Child osier Mothe r' sobjection and despite the entirety of the record since this case began and without putting into place reasonable :child safety measures requested by Mother.'

DISCUSSION

STANDARD. OF REVIEW.

The standard of appellate review in custody matters its whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion: Abuse of discretion is .the broadest scope of review and has been described by this Honorable Appellate Court.as follows:

[The appellate court] mush accept the findings of the trial court. that are supported by competent evidence . of record..:.ln - addition, with regard to. issues :of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge: who presided over the . proceedings and thus viewed the* witnesses. firsthand...Uitimately, the. test is .whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the:evidence .of record. [ The appellate court] may reject the conclusions. of * the trial. court * only if they involve. an error of law or are unreasonable. in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court. 3

In supporting the discretion of atrial court in custody matters, `this Honorable. Appellate Court has noted

33 Appellant's Rule 1925 Statement, Powmen, No. 2Q7B-0a825 (February 8,2424}.

3 e_S.G.. v, ❑.M_C:, 255 A. 3d 528; 5.3.3 ( Pa. Super: 2021}(quoting E. D. v. M. P., 33A.3d.73, 76 ( Pa.Super. 2011}{quoting A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A2 32, 35-36 ( Pa. Super. 21)10}}:

Page 7of 15 2016-00825-0476 OPINION, Page 8

The discretion that a trial court employs i n custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect ;given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting. impact the result will have on the lies of the parties. concerned. Indeed, the knowledge . gained by atrial * court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannat . adequately.bo imparted to an appellate court by aprinted record. 35

In acustody case,the primary concern is the best interests of the child, 3' "The. best interests standard,decided on a `case- by-case basis, considers all factors that legitimately. affect the child's physical ,intellectual,. moral,and spiritual well•be.ing." 37 In modifying an award of custody,the trial court must consider all- sixteen factors enumerated in 23 Pa . C.S. § 5328(a). 38 However, when atrial court is * not making.*an award. of custody,but rather modifying a "discrete custody-related issue;" .it is not bound to address the sixteen statutory factors in determining the child ' sbest interest. 33 Further,under 23 Pa.C.S _ § 5333(d), atrial court may order a. party to pay all or part of the costs associated with counseling.

CONTEMPT

Mother' sfirst two statement of errors concern this Cour't's failure to hold Father in contempt at Mother' srequest_In order to find aparty in civil contempt, "there most be proof by apreponderance of the evidence that . the contemner had notice. of the specific order that he or she is alleged to have disobeyed, that the act. that constituted the bontemnor' sviolation was volitional,and that the contemnor acted with. wrongful intent:"b° . Additionally , -to find a. party in civil contempt, the trial court must be -convinced .beyond areasonable doubt that the ,contemnor has the present ability to comply with the Court . order 4T

35 d. (quoting Ketterer v.Seifert ;902 A. 2d 533 ;540 (Pa. Super.20.06)(quoting Jackson v.- Beck,858 A.2d 1250, 1254 ( P.a. Super. 2004)).

3s 23 Pa.C,S. §5328(a)..

37 B.S.G., 255 A.3d at 533.

3 .j.R.A v: J.P.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 ( Pei.. Super:2011).

39 M.O., 85 KM at 1063.

40 S.A.W. v. T.L.W:,-.230 A.3d 402,406 ( Pa..'Super. 2020).

41 Garr v.Peters , .773 A.2d 1.83, 189 (Pa. Super_ 2001 )(quoting Sinalko 4. Sinaiko ,664 A. 2d 1005,1009 (Pa.- Super,1995)(internal quotations and citations omitted)).

Page 8of 15 2416-00825-0476 OPINION, Page'9

The standard of appellate. 'review in custody contempt , matters is whether the trial court abused its discretion.Abuse of discretion has been described by the Superior Court in this context as whether the trial. court,."in reaching its conclusion,overrides or .misapplies the. law or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or reaches aconclusion that is the . result • of partiality,prejudice,bias or.ill will as shown by the evidence of the record_.."42

The:first issue for contempt was. Father' sfailure to notify Mother of his specific -travel plans within seven days as required by the.Order,The vacation notice of the Custody Order is as follows:

Notice: The parent shall give notice to the other parent at least 30 days prior to the vacation . "Notice," for the purposes of vacation only, is :defned as a communication sent via Our . Family Wizard to the. other parent regarding the dates of the vacation ' for planning purposes, The travel itinerary ;flightln€ormation (if any), and address and phone number of where Child will be staying during the. vacation, shall be provided to the other parent as soon as reasonably possible,but.in any eirent,no later than one week prior to the scheduled departure date. As noted in Paragraph 3(n) above., the phone number may be the custodial parent' scell phone: number, the address mustbe areal address,if available,or alatitude and longitude 'if no real address is .available 43

For Father' s2022 Vacation, though Father informed. Mother within * 30 days of his intent to take vacation, he•did not give. bee his specific itinerary until 2 days prior to his scheduled departure .Father did not address this claim in his•testimony,but'even Mothees •testimony did not supporta. finding . of contempt.. Mother stated that Father informed her on May 28, 2022 that he was planning his . vacatlon from July 11 to July 18 • and "hoping" :to get to Kansas_ Mother then. offered into evidence acopy of Father's message from July 9,20..22 ,which stated

Below are the details for our vacation .Iknow these . details.are alittle later than .you prefer in coming to you but this .trip has been stressful to plan, considering -this is my first trip to Kansas since . the last attempt .at planning atrip :We just finished booking'the hotels tonight below are the details ... I hope you can understand that as this is the first time that [Child] and Janna will be meeting their Kansas family and my first trip home. in 15 years, these plans maybe fluid. and changes may. be made while in Kansas4 4

42 B.A.W., 203•A.3d at.406.

¢ 3.Amended Custody Order and Parenfing Plan, 4(c)(H), Bowman ,20.16-00825 ( February 11, 2022).

Plaintiff's Exhibit 5D_

Page 9of 1.5 2016700825-0476 OPINION, Page 10

The exhibit does not show that Father delayed 'reporting with wrongful. intent. Rather, it shows that Father was having difficulty making plans for atrip in which he would be travelling around the state of Kansas visiting his extended family. He did not, strictly comply with the Court Order ;but Father's words in the exhibit. that Mother proffered do not reflect any malicious intent ;and afinding of contempt would not have been proper..

For Father's 2023 vacation, Father again did not provide his. itinerary; but he was. remaining .at home, so without travel plans, .the seven-day provision does not seem to. apply;as it requires disclosure of the "travel itinerary, flight information, address and phone number for Child:" While Father should have been more specific with Mother as to his plans fora "staycation," it .is unclear whether the Order covers a "staycation. Again, however, even if.the Order does cover a 'staycation," Mother was not able to show that. Father withheld the information With. wrongful intent, or whether he simply misunderstood the need to provide details for a "staycativn'."

As to the golf camp, this Court. could not determine whether Father had actually , violated.a provision of the Order. The..camp did not fit into an "extracurricular activity," because it did not .interfere with Mother's custodial period, and was not "regularly occurring:"a 5 It'is also not a "school program" for which Mother would have had to be consulted under the. legal custody provisions of the Order. As to Mother's argument on the. waiver falling under legal custody., this Court. found her argument disingenuous, because most amusement parks, trampoline parks ;and avariety of indoor and outdoor activities, to include the waterpark mentioned by Child in chambers, require the signing or assumption' of awaiver. 46

Additionally, this Court could not discern wrongful : intent. Father, -when prodded about his motivations by this Court stated the following:

Ididn't know that'itwould result in this.kind of aproblem. Was it easier to, do it over vacation time? Yes ... Ididn't: realize that him being excited about something ;that she*may or may not. have known about prior to Would be this upsetting to her...I knew that there would be aconversation * that drug out with the potential of an argument of trim not being able to do it...Again, I'm being completely honest with you, -Your Honor. I didn't generally th ink about what the repercussions.a . re going. to be from het....i think in the moment of,

45 Amended Custody Order and Parenting Plan 117(a)=(0) ;Bowman, 2416-o0825 ( February 11, 2022).

41 See Transcript at 1 .54=166; and 20$.=217 .

Page 10 of 15 2616-00825-0476..OPlN*' ION, Page 11

this is or.time.as: afamily, this is -our vacation time, this is something that my son wants to do, why prevent him?47

It was this . Court' simpression that while Father'did intentionally plan the golf camp: over his vacation so that he,. - did not haVe. to get Mother's permission to schedule it,. he did it more so out of fear that Child would not be able to participate than out of any wrongful intent. Child wanted to do the golf camp, Father believed that.Mother would make it difficult for him to enroll Child,so he • took his vacation time.vver.the sarhe week so that it would not interfere. with Mother'scustodial time, and thus. not technically violate the Order.

Mother'snext * count for contempt was that Father did not permit Child to speak. with .Mother over the .phone on August • 1, 2023.. There was* very little testimony as to as to the actual violation Mother claims., and as Mother requested *. in April 2023 to forego the court-ordered nightly phone. calls, there is no longer aprovision in the Order for which this violation would fall 4a

The next' issue on contempt was the frequency of Child ' shaircuts,This?Court designated aspecific haircut schedule and attached it. to the Order as Exhibit C.- Regrettably .,however,in an effort to minimize " gaming' the schedule,the Court also added the following language to the Order " in no event shall Child receive ahaircut earlier than 6weeks after h• is last haircut or later than 8weeks after ' his last haircut:'`49 Unfortunately, the.language . had the apposite result and. created vagueness and confusion .Because. the language of the Order allows for altemate interpretations, Father was. not properly on notice and cannot be ,adjudged in. contempt of this provision.

Mother's next. issue for contempt concerned Father •enrolling Child on his- health• insurance plan without Mother' spermission .This contempt harkens back to the October 1.2 ;2021 Order at issue in Mother' slast appeal ,so this Court will decline to go into great detail . on that particular order.The gist is that a:status conference with the parties •designed to select atherapist for Child devolved into an. argument over how Ms. Mayan would bilfthe parents;Mother' sinsurance did not cover Ms. Morah' sservices., so. for atime,it appeared . as though .Ms. Moran billed Father's.insurance for Child, even though he was , not. covered by Father' sinsurance. After the October 12., '2021 status conference,this Court issued. an Order that stated . a"change in insurance coverage will

47 See Transc ript 194-196.

as See Order of.Court In Re:. Summary and Recommendation of the Parenting Coordinator,Bowinan, No. 2016- 00825 (April 5,2023 ). It is noted that this order anticipated ( read.,wam' ed) that by foregoing the set phone tails, there may be times that Child would choose riot to speak tQ• the non- custodial parent.! 49 Amended Custody Order and Parenting Plan . ¶7 ( g), Bowman,.2016-00825 ( February 11,.2022).

Page 11 of 15 2015-00825.=0476 .oPI NION, - Page ,12

wE o • .o a. not be unilateral and. will either be presented to the Court or negotiated amongst the 4 • y C attorneys as to provide either supplemental,additional,or primary coverage for minor child at " the best price with the hest coverage."5° U

• ro When Father asked Mother about enrolling Child in .kris insurance , . Mother took w 5 •. the statement from the October 12, 2021 . Order literally,and instead of working the issue . out .with Father*,. emailed the Parenting Coordinator to ask for her to address it. 42 C C With Father' sopen enrollment period ending ,Father took- it upon Himself to enroll Child 4 • on his plan as Child' ssecondary insurance,with Mother' s. insurance remaining the primary. insurance.

a~ w Dace again ,this Court could not ascertain wrongful intent: Mother declined to 4i v c ≥ negotiate with Father regarding the insurance and sought court intervention.instead ha through the Parenting Coordinator as .Father'sopen enrollment period loomed .Father a -• •cat enrolled Child in*order to keep the pagments'to Ms. Moran lower,and Mother is v 00 benefiting 4rorri the Child being on Father' sinsurance as asecondary option. 51 a•..o n • The last issue Mother raised on contempt*.was Father taking* Child out of school on the day of his wedding . one *hour early.so that Child could attend his wedding photo o. o a specific Order to address Father' shoot.This Court issued : swedding ,which states q• v a. `.Child shall be permitted to attend any other wedding- related family events,that. do not n ; otherwise coincide with his First Reconciliat ion' " 52 It is this Court' sintention that a Lz wedding photo shoot would fall under " wedding- related Family events," and therefore, father was acting within the scope of this Court' sOrder. 53 a v, v o' U PASSPORT R- p b

o• Mother' s*third and fourfterrors complained .of on appeal concern this Court's z• 16 ruling. that Child should be -issued * aU.S. Passport and that Mother should cooperate in C Q CL obtaining said passport by providing Child's original birth certifiicate and signing the required.documents.Mother takes issue with signing the statement of.consent because

uU a• ; z 51 Order of Court Re:Status Conference,Bowman, No.. 2016- 00825 ( October 13 ,2021 ). m jz• U 51We are aware that Mother is suspect of Father' smotivations in that she believes he may seek a U'i! support adjustment in reiation to Child's insurance,but it has been over ayear since Father enrolled Child ro on his insurance plan and he has:yet.todo: .so. ;so Mother's claims ring hollow. a5 h. as g 62 Order of Court In Re: DefendantfFathees Motion for Reconsideration ,. Bowman ,No: 201 . 6-40825 Ig•L • q `(February 11, * 2022).

53Frankly., when this Court was informed that Father was getting married on aFriday, we assumed that. CO CO O Child would have been . absent . from school that whole.day. 91 b N 4 Page 12.of 1.5 y @• rq 4= 2016-00825-0476 OPINION., Page 1.3

she does not,'ln'fact, give consent,and believes . thatthis*Court has not put in place. adequate measures to protect Child whiletraveling.

The Order. issued by this Court regarding Child's* passport states the following:

Passport: Child will be allowed to procure apassport and'a passport card. Parents will split the fee for a passport book, and Father. can pay for expedited processing if he so wishes.. Father will bear . the cost of the passport card , Father. Will' pply for the passport and Mother will execute any required :.steps within the next 30 days,including,but not limited to, executing the DS-3053 Statement of Corisent Form and providing any required documents, including; but* not limited to Child's original birth certificate . Once .the passport is issued , it will be delivered to the Prothonotary' sOffice for safe keeping.Said Passport can be retrieved 60 days prior to any international travel,with both parents consenting to said .retrieval. The passport book will be returned to the Prothonotary's office within 14 days of said travel.. Father can keep the . passport card ,unless Mother'requests it for tier travel .The'parents shall not take the Child to any country thaf does not recognize the Hague . Convention, or:any country with alevel 3or 4travel advisary. 54

There is very little.appellate . case law on the issuance of passports'for children in relation to custody matters,and most: of the cases . that have been reported concern parents who are dual citizens or otherwise have ties to other countries: 55 As to

appellate review,however, the.Superior Court has held

Our scope of review is broad in that ẁe are not bound by deductions and inferences drawn by the trial :courtfrom the facts found ,. nor are we required. to ;accept findings which are wholly without support in the record.- - On the other hand ,our scope of review does not authorize us to. nullify the fact- finding function of the trial court in order to substitute our judgment for that of the .trial court.. Rather, we are bound by findings supported in the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only- if they involve . an error of law* , or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.ss

Order of Court In Re: Reports and Recommendations of the Parenting Coordinator dated May 26, 2023 ,September 12, 2023 , : and. November 29, 2023;Father' sPetition for Special Relief;: Father's Motion for Discovery ;and Mother'sPetition for Contempt,11, Bowman ,No_ 2016- 00825.( January 9, 2024):

ss See e.g. O.G .v. A:B., 234 X3d 766 ( Pa. Super.2020)(.Mo.ther and children held dual Russian/U.S. citizenship); and Nagle v. Nagle, .871 A. 2d 832 (Pa_ Super_2005){Mother held Irish citizenship and children were. dual Irish and. U. S.- citizens).

66 Nagle, 871 A.2d.at.837..

Page 113 of*1.5 20.'36-00825-0476. OPINION, Page 14.

Mother's arguments are not supported bythe record. First, irt:terms of the 'protections for Child's travel, this. Court carefully considered Mother's concerns and crafteda practical,soldtion. Mother's fear in Father•traveling internationally with Child is that Father will leave the country with Child.and never return: That.fear perceived by Mother is based on the incident that occurred . in 2016 early in the parties' separation where Father removedChild from the marital home and took him to his. Father's house in Berks County without Mother's permission. There was no custody order in place at the.time, but'Father's actions were nonetheless punished. He was. not permitted to exercise any form of custody o₹Child for two months, and was then* relegated to supervised visits for another three months. The current Custody Order is the first Order granting Father shared physical custody of Child, and was.fled.almost exactly 8years after the commencement of this action. It has now been over 8..years since* Father absconded with Child.

Additionally, this Court did not find it reasonably believable that Father would abscond to another. country with Child. Father owns a.h6me in Dauphin. County with his wife, both of whom work locally.. Father is close with his wife's family who also lives within the Commonwealth. Father's extended family,. to this Court's knowledge, resides in the United States. Father is a United States.citizen and during the hearing Mather did. not suggest that he has ever been acitizen of another county or has ties to another count ry. 67 Fath er's purpose in obtaining the passport was to take Child on a. Disney Cruise with his extended family.

-All things considered,. however, this Court did believe Mother's fear to be her actual perception, and thus, pot in place the restrictions as outlined above. Father cannot take Child anywhere that does not recognize the Hague Convention,.or to any country with alevel - 3or 4gravel advisory. Additionally; this Court mandated that the Prothonotary hold Child's passport book,. and provided that no one be able to remove it without consent of the other party. This Court believes these precautions to be reasonable and balanced with the benefit of Chid traveling abroad and spending vacation time-With his family.-

As to Mother's statement of error that this Court cannot properly force her to sign* the. Statement of Consent Form,.at the time, this Court believed, based on ail.of our previous interactions with Mother, that Mother would. have preferred to be an active participant ,in the application process, and so the Order reflects that belief.

si Mother appeared to suggest in her Motion for Reconsideration that Father has'a friend in Berks County who has ties to Ukraine, - and that when he fled with Chili in February 2016 ;he actually went to that friend's house and. not to his father's house, We heardno testimony regarding this "friend" at trial or whether l=ather is still friends with him_ Additionally, we find it very difficult to believe that Father would abscond with Child to an active warzone_

Page 14 of 15. Case# 2076-00825=47$, Received at Cumberland County Prothonotaryon 05/08 2024 10:56 AM, Fee = $0,{70. The filer gertifes that this frling.cornplies with the provisions of the Public Access Policiof the Unified Judirral.System.of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that .require filing confidential information. and . documen'ts differently than .non .confidential. information and documents

a 'M •. rL. CD 0.

RL> CD vo c,.

• CD Q 0• w 1 - CD

U] M 9l }o9b a6ed

linoo 2HI h8*

20.16-00825-0475.0 PI NION, * Page. 15