J.M. v. K.W., 76 MDA 2016

Background

Mother (K.W.) surreptitiously relocated with the parties' young children from Schuylkill County to Lancaster County; Father filed contempt proceedings.
On December 24, 2015 the trial court found Mother in contempt and, as a sanction, changed custody by awarding shared/primary custody to Father.
Mother appealed, arguing the custody modification was improper as a contempt sanction and that she lacked specific notice custody would be at issue.
The appellate majority affirmed parts of the contempt finding but treated the custody change as an interim custody order (not addressing the due process/notice challenge fully).
Judge Bowes (concurring/dissenting) would have held the custody modification improper because Father’s contempt petition and the scheduling orders failed to provide the particular notice required to put custody at issue.
The case raises tension between a court’s power to impose sanctions in contempt proceedings, the nonappealable nature of interim custody orders, and due process notice requirements under prior Pennsylvania precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether court may modify custody as a contempt sanction without specific notice that custody will be at issue	Father argued his contempt petition and attached proposed order requested custody so Mother had notice and opportunity to defend	Mother argued Rule 1915.12 notice and order to appear did not specifically notify her that custody modification was sought, denying due process	Majority avoided fully resolving; Bowes J. would hold custody modification improper for lack of required specific notice
Whether contempt adjudication with sanction is appealable despite custody-order interlocutory rule	Father implicitly relied on interim-custody characterization to limit appealability	Mother argued contempt sanction altering custody is final/appealable and must meet due process notice rules	Bowes: contempt finding with sanction is appealable and court should review custody-modification sanction
Whether Rule 1915.13 special-relief authority justified the interim custody order	Father/majority suggested trial court could have been acting under Rule 1915.13 to grant temporary custody	Mother countered trial court explicitly framed custody change as a sanction and did not enter an order under Rule 1915.13	Bowes: trial court did not invoke Rule 1915.13; it imposed custody change as sanction, so Rule 1915.13 does not cure lack of notice
Proper remedy when contempt petition requests custody but fails to include required notice and order to appear	Father argued substantive request sufficed; proposed order made objective clear	Mother argued absence of formal Rule 1915.12 notice and scheduling order put custody outside contempt scope	Bowes: absent specific notice in both petition and notice/order to appear, transferring custody as sanctions is an abuse of discretion; vacate that aspect of contempt order

Key Cases Cited

Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contempt adjudication with sanction can be appealable)
Clapper v. Harvey, 716 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1998) (contempt finding may be proper but cannot itself be basis to award custody)
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 504 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1986) (custody awards should not be used to punish or reward parental behavior)
Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (respondent must receive particular notice when contempt petitioner seeks custody modification)
Everett v. Parker, 889 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2005) (modifying custody at contempt hearing without proper service/notice violates due process)
Steele v. Steele, 545 A.2d 376 (Pa. Super. 1988) (generally improper to modify custody without a petition to modify)
Choplosky v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court may not permanently alter visitation or custody absent a motion to modify)
P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702 (Pa. Super. 2012) (reiterating requirement of notice when contempt proceedings implicate custody)