J.M. v. K.W.
J.M. v. K.W. No. 76 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother K.W., Father J.M.) separated; Father filed custody complaint March 2014; parties entered a stipulated interim custody agreement giving Mother primary physical custody pending trial.
- Trial court issued a March 25, 2014 scheduling order expressly prohibiting relocation without court approval under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337 and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.17.
- Mother filed notice of proposed relocation to Lancaster County but moved with the children before court approval; she later purchased property in Lancaster and enrolled son in a local preschool.
- Father filed a petition for special relief and contempt; at the December 24, 2015 hearing the court found Mother in contempt for relocating (but not for preschool enrollment) and, as sanction, changed custody from Mother's primary physical custody to shared custody until trial; court also awarded attorney fees.
- Mother appealed; Superior Court held the contempt finding for relocation valid, reversed contempt finding for preschool enrollment (no existing legal-custody order), vacated the custody-sanction (modification of custody as a contempt sanction was improper without specific notice and best-interest adjudication), and remanded for recalculation of fees and expedited custody proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.M.) | Defendant's Argument (K.W.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Adequacy of contempt petition notice (Pa.R.C.P. 1915.12) | Contempt petition and proposed order sought custody; Mother had notice custody relief was sought. | Petition lacked the specific "Notice and Order to Appear" required by Rule 1915.12; insufficient notice that custody would be at issue. | Petition inadequate to notify Mother custody would be litigated; trial court erred in modifying custody as contempt sanction. |
| 2. Contempt for relocating without court approval (violation of §5337 and scheduling order) | Relocation violated the March 25, 2014 order and §5337; contempt appropriate. | Mother argued the operative custody orders lacked relocation language or the move did not "relocate" under statute because Father’s access increased. | Mother knowingly invoked §5337 procedures then relocated before approval; contempt for unauthorized relocation affirmed. |
| 3. Contempt for enrolling child in preschool (legal custody issue) | Enrolling child without Father’s knowledge/consent violated parental decisionmaking and justified contempt. | No existing order allocating legal custody; enrollment occurred during Mother’s custodial time—no court order was violated. | Finding of contempt for preschool enrollment reversed—no existing legal-custody order was violated. |
| 4. Appropriateness of modifying custody as a contempt sanction | Custody modification is a permissible remedy; Father requested primary custody in his petition. | Modification of custody is not a proper contempt sanction unless respondent had particularized notice and a best-interest determination occurred. | Vacated custody modification: modifying custody as a contempt sanction was improper absent specific notice and a best-interest adjudication; custody award cannot be used as punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (interim custody orders are generally not appealable)
- Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements required to prove civil contempt)
- P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702 (Pa. Super. 2012) (notice required when contempt proceeding implicates custody modification)
- C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2012) (whether a move is a statutory "relocation" depends on whether it significantly impairs non-relocating party’s custodial rights)
- Clapper v. Harvey, 716 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1998) (contempt cannot be the sole basis for awarding 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 have notice custody will be at issue in contempt proceedings)
- Everett v. Parker, 889 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2005) (formal notice and service requirements are essential before modifying custody in contempt proceedings)
- Choplosky v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Rule 1915.13 special relief permits temporary custody adjustments but proper procedure is required)
- Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a contempt finding imposing a sanction is appealable)