Jaurigue, P. v. Caldwell, J.
This text of Jaurigue, P. v. Caldwell, J. (Jaurigue, P. v. Caldwell, J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S28017-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PHILIP P. JAURIGUE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSEPH S. CALDWELL, JR. AND : JACQUI L. SPENCER (DECEASED) : : No. 796 EDA 2021 : APPEAL OF: JOSEPH S. CALDWELL, : JR. :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): A06-20-60856-C-37
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Joseph S. Caldwell, Jr. (“Father”) appeals from the March 22, 2021
Order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas that found Philip
P. Jaurigue to have in loco parentis standing to pursue custody of L.C. (“Child”)
and awarded Father sole legal and primary physical custody and Mr. Jaurigue
partial physical custody of Child. Upon review, we affirm.
The relevant procedural and factual history, as gleaned from the trial
court opinion and the certified record, is as follows. Father and Jacqui Spencer
(“Mother”) are parents to nine-year-old Child, who was born in March 2012.
Father and Mother never lived together. Mother began a romantic relationship
with Mr. Jaurigue, and subsequently Mother and Child resided primarily with ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S28017-21
Mr. Jaurigue from August 2013 until Mother died in December 2019. During
this time, Mother had primary physical custody of Child and Father had partial
physical custody. When Mother died, Child began residing with Father full-
time and visited with Mr. Jaurigue when Father permitted.
On June 17, 2020, Mr. Jaurigue filed a Complaint for Custody, which
averred that he stood in loco parentis to Child and requested partial physical
custody of Child. On July 6, 2020, Father filed Preliminary Objections and
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. The trial court held a hearing on
November 5, 2020, and after hearing testimony and reviewing the parties’
briefs, the court overruled Father’s objections and concluded that Mr. Jaurigue
had in loco parentis standing to pursue custody of Child.
Pending a custody hearing, the parties entered into an Interim Agreed
Custody Order, which awarded Mr. Jaurigue physical custody of Child every
Monday after school and on alternating Saturdays, one overnight visit, as well
as daily video calls with Child.
The trial court held custody hearings on January 4, 2021, and February
9, 2021. Mr. Jaurigue testified on his own behalf and presented testimony
from Michael Spencer, Child’s maternal grandfather. Father presented
testimony from himself, his fiancé Ciani Wells, and Child’s therapist Amanda
Phillips. On March 22, 2012, after consideration of the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)
custody factors on the record, the trial court granted Mr. Jaurigue’s request
for custody and awarded Mr. Jaurigue partial physical custody of Child for,
-2- J-S28017-21
inter alia, one weekend every other month, Saturdays during the day on
alternating weekends, and every Thursday after school.
Father timely appealed. The trial court ordered Father to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement and Father complied.1 The trial court filed a responsive
Opinion.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial judge err, as a matter of law and facts, and abuse his discretion by denying and dismissing the Preliminary Objections filed by [Father] that [Mr. Jaurigue] did not stand in loco parentis to [] Child and thus ha[s] no standing to bring the instant action?
2. Did the trial judge err, as matter of law and facts, and abuse his discretion by using incorrect criteria, bases and reasons in determining that that [Mr. Jaurigue] had standing to file the instant action?
Father’s Brief at 4 (some capitalization omitted).
“Determining standing in custody disputes is a threshold issue that must
be resolved before proceeding to the merits of the underlying custody action.”
C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 898 (Pa. 2018). Whether an individual has
standing in a custody dispute “is a conceptually distinct legal question which
____________________________________________
1 Although Father failed to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained
of on Appeal contemporaneously with his Notice of Appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i), (b), we decline to dismiss on this basis because no party asserted prejudice. See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that the failure to file a rule 1925(b) statement contemporaneously with a notice of appeal in a children’s fast track case will result in a defective notice of appeal which this Court will address on a case-by-case basis, avoiding the extreme action of dismissal when the defect does not prejudice any party).
-3- J-S28017-21
has no bearing on the central issue within the custody action [of] who is
entitled to physical and legal custody of Child in light of her best interests[.]”
K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774, 779 (Pa. 2015). “Issues of standing are questions
of law; thus, the standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is
plenary.” C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d at 898.
Relevant to this appeal, Section 5324 of the Custody Act provides that
an individual can seek “any form of physical or legal custody” if the individual
stands “in loco parentis to the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(2). “The term in loco
parentis literally means ‘in the place of a parent.’” Peters v. Costello, 891
A.2d 705, 710 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). “The status
of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental
status, and, second, the discharge of parental duties.” Id. (citation omitted).
Both issues that Father raises on appeal challenge the trial court’s ruling
that Mr. Jaurigue had standing to pursue partial physical custody of Child.
Father’s Br. at 4. Father argues, without citation to the record, that the trial
court erred when it found that Mr. Jaurique stood in loco parentis to Child
based on the evidence presented in court. Id. at 9. In turn, Mr. Jaurique
argues that Father has waived these issues because Father’s brief lacks any
reference to the record to support his arguments and contains numerous other
violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellee’s Br. at 14. We agree.
Our review of Father’s brief exposes significant violations of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. For example, Father fails to state the appropriate
standard and scope of review and fails to provide citations to any supporting
-4- J-S28017-21
authority regarding the standard of review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3);
Father’s Br. at 3. Father’s statement of the case includes a procedural and
factual history but fails to cite to the record as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117.
Father’s Br. at 5. In addition, Father fails to divide his argument section into
“as many parts as there are questions to be argued” as required by Pa.R.A.P.
2119. Id. at 10-17. Most importantly, in his argument section, Father fails
to cite to the record, severely hampering this Court’s ability to review Father’s
challenges. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c); Father’s Br. at 10-17.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jaurigue, P. v. Caldwell, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaurigue-p-v-caldwell-j-pasuperct-2021.