A.G. v. M.A., A.G. v. M.A. No. 1976 EDA 2016

Parents (Mother M.A. and Father A.G.) share custody of daughter born Sept. 2012; initial temporary joint custody order entered Oct. 2013 and a shared week-on/week-off final custody order entered Mar. 27, 2015.
Father filed a petition to modify custody (seek primary physical custody) on June 9, 2015 and an emergency petition July 10, 2015 alleging Mother made a false DHS report; court granted Father temporary primary physical custody July 20, 2015.
The trial court set a consolidated trial on the competing modification petitions for March 29–30, 2016; Mother also filed (Feb. 19, 2016) petitions to modify, for contempt, and to change venue.
After hearings, the trial court’s May 27, 2016 final custody order awarded joint legal custody (with exceptions), primary physical custody to Father, and partial physical custody to Mother; the court found Father in contempt for failing to list Mother on daycare paperwork but imposed no sanctions or fee award.
Mother appealed asserting (1) Delaware County lacked UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction when Father filed his modification petition and (2) the court erred in denying contempt relief and refusing to award attorneys’ fees.
The Superior Court affirmed: (a) held that intrastate UCCJEA issues are venue, not subject-matter jurisdiction (all counties have custody jurisdiction), and (b) found no abuse of discretion in the contempt rulings or refusal to award fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether Delaware County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA when Father filed his modification petition	Mother: At the time of filing all parties lived in Philadelphia, so Delaware County lacked UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction	Father: UCCJEA intrastate rules govern venue, not subject-matter jurisdiction; all counties have competence over custody	Court: Rejected Mother; UCCJEA intrastate disputes are venue issues; all counties have subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether trial court erred in denying most contempt claims and in refusing to award attorneys’ fees after finding limited contempt (failure to list Mother on daycare forms)	Mother: Father violated prior orders (relocation, denying exchanges, blocking communications, moving without authorization) and should be held in contempt and pay fees	Father: Denied wrongdoing or argued violations were minor or not volitional; trial court discretion on sanctions	Court: No abuse of discretion; contempt findings require clear, specific order, volitional violation, and wrongful intent; relocation did not significantly impair custodial rights; minor paperwork failure did not warrant fees

J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2014) (UCCJEA intrastate provisions allocate venue among counties; all counties retain subject-matter jurisdiction)
Schultz v. Schultz, 70 A.3d 826 (Pa. Super. 2013) (denial of contempt can be final where it effectively denies relief to which movant was entitled under an earlier final order)
MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for contempt denials: abuse of discretion)
Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements for civil contempt: notice of specific order, volitional act, wrongful intent; orders must be definite and specific)
Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court where factual findings supported and legal conclusions not erroneous)
Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 140 A.2d 814 (Pa. 1958) (civil contempt is remedial; sanctions coercive or compensatory)
Wolf v. Weymers, 427 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 1981) (venue is a personal privilege that may be waived)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1998) (appellate court cannot develop issues for an appellant)
Rabatin v. Allied Glove Corp., 24 A.3d 388 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court may not act as appellant's counsel)