M.S. v. Y.W.S., 3625 EDA 2015

Parents (Father M.S. and Mother Y.W.S.) share a child born in 2005; divorce in 2010 and custody litigation followed.
October 17, 2011: parties stipulated to shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody; court marked the case "settled." July 18, 2013 the court made that agreement an order.
Father filed two petitions to modify custody (2013 and 2014). An expert evaluator, Dr. Cooke, was retained and the parties agreed to split his fees; dispute arose over payment of his testimony fee.
April–July 2014–2015: interim supervised visitation ordered; July 2015 listing was continued by agreement. In September 2015 Father offered to "walk away" and give Mother sole legal and physical custody; Mother filed a counterclaim for custody that day.
Mother later filed a contempt petition (July 2015) alleging Father failed to pay half of Dr. Cooke’s testimony fee. Trial court (Oct. 27, 2015) denied contempt and dismissed Mother’s custody counterclaim as moot; Mother appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s September 2015 custody counterclaim prevented dismissal of Father’s custody complaint/modification petitions	Mother: Court improperly dismissed claims on procedural grounds and ignored child’s best interests	Father: The custody dispute had been resolved by agreement/offered settlement giving Mother sole custody, leaving no live controversy	Court: Dismissal proper—counterclaim moot because Father already relinquished custody; affirmed
Whether Father should be held in contempt for not paying half of expert testimony fee	Mother: Father disobeyed the June 2014 order and should pay his share; continuance in July 2015 was due to his nonpayment	Father: He paid evaluation fee share, lacked funds for testimony fee, and reasonably believed settlement (relinquishing custody) made testimony unnecessary	Court: Denial of contempt affirmed—Mother failed to prove wrongful intent or clear timing obligation; order ambiguous and no contempt shown

Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for custody orders — abuse of discretion)
Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate review limited; do not substitute judgment for trial court)
J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2004) (mootness doctrine — actual controversy must exist)
Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (courts may raise mootness sua sponte)
Godfrey v. Godfrey, 894 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contempt review — great deference to trial court)
Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements required to prove civil contempt)
Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden of proof in contempt is by a preponderance of the evidence)