N.S.G. v. C.L.O.
N.S.G. v. C.L.O. No. 1332 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Father (N.S.G.) sought enforcement of his one-week annual vacation custody under a 2011 custody order (amended 2013, 2014) after Mother (C.L.O.) allegedly twice denied his vacation time.
- Father had previously appealed a custody order denying equal custody; that appeal concluded in December 2015. Father also filed petitions to modify custody (April and July 2015) that remained pending.
- Mother had earlier conditioned exchanges on receiving Father's travel details; the court had found her in contempt in October 2015 for failing to produce the child for Father’s 2015 vacation week but declined sanctions.
- On July 7, 2016, after a conference, the trial court ordered Mother to make the child available July 16–23, 2016, required Father to notify Mother of destination at least two hours before leaving Dauphin County, and required the child to wear a GPS-capable “Gizmo” during the vacation.
- Father appealed pro se, arguing the court improperly added new requirements to the vacation clause while other custody litigation was pending.
- The Superior Court considered sua sponte whether the July 7, 2016 order was appealable and ultimately quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 7, 2016 order was appealable (final or collateral) | Trial court abused discretion by adding new requirements (destination notice; Gizmo) and appealable now | The order was not a final resolution of custody and thus not appealable | Appeal quashed: order not final and not appealable as a collateral order; Superior Court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 971 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2009) (courts must sua sponte determine whether an appealed order is appealable)
- Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 2000) (jurisdictional necessity of reviewing appealability)
- Stewart v. Foxworth, 65 A.3d 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appeal lies only from a final order unless rule or statute permits)
- G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (custody order is final and appealable only if entered after hearings on the merits and intended as a complete resolution)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (refusal to quash appeal based on procedural defects where opposing party not prejudiced)