P.H.D. v. R.R.D.
56 A.3d 702
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Parents divorced with two children, J.D. (b. 1999) and R.D. (b. 2001).
- Custody was governed by June 28, 2011 and September 20, 2011 orders, with Father limited to supervised visits pending therapy and no contact beyond that.
- Mother filed a contempt petition on January 19, 2012 alleging Father violated the custody order by unsupervised contact.
- At a March 1, 2012 hearing, Father contested the alleged violations; the court dismissed contempt but sua sponte “clarified” the custody order with broad contact restrictions.
- On March 5, 2012, the court dismissed the contempt petition and issued a clarified custody provision prohibiting Father from appearing at activities or places where the children are likely to be, effectively modifying the custody order without a modification petition or proper notice.
- The court’s action was found to violate Father’s due process rights, leading the court to vacate the custody modification portion of the order and require a proper modification petition and notice for any future custody changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court modify custody without a modification petition or notice? | Father | Mother and court claim clarification, not modification | Yes; court improperly modified custody without petition or notice. |
| Did the contempt dismissal preclude ancillary custody modification? | Father | Modification was ancillary to contempt | Modification exceeded scope; not permitted without proper proceeding. |
| Were Father’s due process rights violated by lack of notice of custody issues? | Father | No notice given; not properly at issue | Violated due process; vacate modification portion. |
| What is the proper standard for civil vs. criminal contempt in this context? | Father | Contempt sought coercive/administrative relief | Proceeding characterized as civil contempt; still, modification needs proper procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (modification requires proper petition and notice; due process)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (rule that rule 905(a)(2) is procedural, not jurisdictional; substantial compliance acceptable)
- Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa. Super. 590, 584 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 1990) (notice ensures adequate opportunity to prepare; custody at issue requires notice)