K.M.G. v. H.M.W., 116 WDA 2017

Parents (H.M.W. — Mother; K.M.G. — Father) share a child born 2010; lengthy custody litigation produced multiple orders and a GAL appointment.
Trial court’s January 25, 2016 order required the parties to use a Child Access Center for Father’s court-ordered custody periods; April 29, 2016 reinstated that directive.
Father filed a contempt petition (July 2016 / Oct. 2016) alleging Mother willfully prevented Child’s visits at the Access Center.
On December 14, 2016 the trial court found Mother in contempt but stated no sanctions would be imposed; it nonetheless ordered immediate family counseling for all parties and that the counselor’s recommendations be unconditionally followed.
Mother appealed; this Court considered appealability (whether the counseling requirement was a sanction / whether the contempt order was final) and then reviewed the merits of the contempt finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt order was appealable (did the court impose sanctions)	Father: order was a contempt adjudication; no separate argument about appealability raised	Mother: the counseling requirement functioned as a sanction (cost and compulsory attendance); the order disposed of all claims so it is final	Court: order was appealable — counseling operated as a coercive remedial sanction and the contempt order disposed of all claims, so final and appealable
Whether Mother was properly held in contempt for failing to comply with Jan. 25/Apr. 29, 2016 orders (i.e., failing to facilitate visits at the Access Center)	Father: Mother voluntarily failed to facilitate or encourage Child’s visits, preventing Father’s access	Mother: she attended scheduled sessions, followed Access Center directions, tried to encourage Child; Access Center staff terminated visits due to Child’s distress; underlying orders did not expressly require ‘‘encouragement’’	Court: reversed. Record showed Mother attended and followed Access Center protocol; the orders did not specifically require her to ‘‘encourage’’ visits, and contempt requires a clear, specific order plus volitional, wrongful noncompliance

Sutliff v. Sutliff, 522 A.2d 80 (Pa. Super. 1987) (cannot hold party in contempt for failing to do what order did not specifically require)
Genovese v. Genovese, 550 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 1988) (discussing appealability of contempt orders absent imposed sanctions)
Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148 (Pa. Super. 2005) (civil contempt sanctions are remedial; appeal and final-order principles)
Takosky v. Henning, 906 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contempt order not final when sentencing/sanctions contemplated later)
Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for contempt and judicial discretion)