M.P. v. R.F.
556 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Mother filed for custody in Nov 2012; Feb 2013 order gave parents shared legal and physical custody. Multiple emergency petitions and disputes followed.
- May 2015 temporary order awarded Father sole legal and physical custody; Mother limited to supervised visits and no direct contact while children were with Father.
- November 2015 final order awarded Father sole legal and primary physical custody; Mother appealed and Superior Court affirmed in Sept 2016.
- In Oct 2016 the trial court found Mother’s subsequent modification petition to be "obdurate, vexatious, and in bad faith," dismissed it, and ordered Mother to pay $1,500 in counsel fees; a later oral/docket confusion left only the denial of reconsideration on the record.
- Mother, proceeding pro se, sought reconsideration in Feb/March 2017; the trial court denied reconsideration (Mar 30, 2017). Mother appealed that denial to the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by dismissing modification and refusing new custody trial | Mother argued court ignored Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, other court orders, and failed to consider children’s best interests; she claimed exoneration from abuse investigations justified a new hearing | Father argued the modification petition recycled prior claims and was previously found frivolous/bad-faith and dismissed; trial court lacked obligation to relitigate | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; Mother merely reasserted prior arguments and presented no new evidence to warrant reopening custody proceedings |
| Whether trial court improperly required payment of $1,500 before hearing | Mother said reimposition of fee was unfair and punitive to an impoverished parent; it blocked access to custody process | Father relied on the prior order awarding counsel fees and trial court enforcement powers; nonpayment supported dismissal of frivolous filings | Court did not decide fee/recusal issues on this appeal (Mother did not properly appeal those orders); they are not before the Court |
| Whether trial court failed to consider children’s best interests / change of circumstances | Mother argued best-interest inquiry and exoneration required new custody consideration and that she need not show change of circumstances | Father and trial court noted custody modification requires changed circumstances when seeking to alter custody; Mother raised previously litigated issues without new evidence | Court agreed trial court need not hold a new hearing where petitioner offers no new evidence; declining to reopen was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether appeal from denial of reconsideration is proper / timeliness and procedural defects | Mother appealed denial of reconsideration and argued trial court rulings were "unfair" | Father pointed to procedural defaults (failure to file concise statement, failure to appeal separate orders) and that appeals from denial of reconsideration are generally improper | Court noted appeals from reconsideration are usually improper but, given the oral dismissal earlier and absence of a prior written order, it addressed the modification claims on the merits and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Karschner v. Karschner, 703 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. 1997) (appeal from order denying reconsideration is generally improper and untimely)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review in custody matters and when trial court must explain best-interest factors)
- Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1999) (party must timely challenge and may not later seek reassessment of unchallenged adverse rulings)
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court accepts trial court factual findings supported by record and defers to credibility determinations)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (defective notice of appeal is not per se fatal where appellee suffers no prejudice)