L.F. v. S.F.
L.F. v. S.F. No. 3117 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Child (born 2006) has been living with his maternal aunt while mother’s whereabouts are unknown; father (D.H.) is incarcerated in South Carolina.
- Maternal aunt filed a petition to modify custody and, separately, an emergency petition (Aug 5, 2016) seeking full legal and physical custody to arrange school and medical care.
- The trial court held an emergency hearing on Aug 24, 2016, and entered an order granting the aunt “sole legal and primary physical custody” and authority to make medical and educational decisions, stating it was an emergency order and that a further custody conference would be held.
- The trial court later clarified the Aug 24 order was treated as an emergency/interlocutory order and that a full hearing on custody remained pending.
- Father filed two pro se notices of appeal (one with proof of service dated Sept 21, 2016); under the prisoner mailbox rule the appeal was timely.
- The Superior Court held that the emergency order was not a final, appealable custody order and therefore quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Aug 24, 2016 emergency custody order is a final, appealable order | Father argued the order did not specify whether it was permanent or temporary and sought modification to temporary custody to preserve parental rights | Trial court and aunt contended the order was an emergency/interlocutory order, not intended as final, and a full custody hearing remained to be held | The Superior Court held the order was interlocutory (not final or otherwise appealable) and quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Father’s appeal was timely | Father invoked the prisoner mailbox rule and filed pro se notices in September 2016 | Appellee did not contest timeliness; court applied the prisoner mailbox rule | The Court treated the appeal as timely under the prisoner mailbox rule but still quashed on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prisoner mailbox rule governs filing date for incarcerated appellants)
- G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (test for custody order finality: hearings on merits complete and court intended order as complete resolution)
- Veloric v. Doe, 123 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appealability goes to appellate court’s jurisdiction)
- In re J.F., 27 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court may overlook certain procedural noncompliance by pro se litigants if issues are discernible)
- Williams v. Thornton, 577 A.2d 215 (Pa. Super. 1990) (orders deciding emergency petitions are interlocutory)