S.L. v. J.L.
635 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- Mother and Father are divorced parents of an eight‑year‑old child; custody litigation began with Father’s complaint in 2012.
- On August 22, 2016, the trial court awarded Mother legal custody limited to school choice and ordered if Mother enrolled the child at Hosack Elementary she must provide all school transportation.
- Mother did not appeal the August 22, 2016 order; she later moved and changed the child’s school over Father’s objection, producing repeated filings and contempt proceedings.
- On February 1, 2017, the court found Mother in contempt of multiple orders, transferred school‑choice legal custody to Father, and ordered Mother to pay counsel fees; Mother did not appeal that order.
- Father filed a motion to enforce the counsel‑fee award; Mother filed a petition (April 12, 2017) seeking sanctions against Father, custody (including re‑enrollment at Hosack), reversal of contempt findings, fee awards, and other relief.
- The trial court denied Mother’s April 12, 2017 petition; Mother appealed pro se. The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and noting Mother’s briefing failed to develop legal arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s petition for special relief/sanctions under best‑interest factors (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)) | Mother argued the court misapplied/ignored best‑interest factors and that its orders harmed the child | Court enforcement of prior unappealed orders and contempt findings justified denial | Denied — no abuse of discretion; prior orders govern and Mother failed to develop legal argument |
| Whether prior contempt findings were final and based on ignored evidence/Rule 607 and constitutional violations | Mother sought reversal/acquittal of contempt findings, alleging ignored evidence and constitutional violations | Father relied on contempt findings and court process; trial court noted Mother failed to appeal earlier orders timely | Denied — contempt findings stood; Mother waived appellate review by not appealing timely |
| Whether transportation orders were unfair and violated constitutional rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) | Mother claimed transportation requirement was unreasonable, biased, and deprived constitutional rights | Court relied on earlier custody order assigning transportation responsibility and on pending custody modification procedure | Denied — transportation requirement remained in effect and Mother’s arguments were undeveloped |
| Whether Mother was entitled to fees/fines from Father for harassment and employment loss | Mother requested $2,210 in counsel fees and $5,000 in fines against Father | Father sought enforcement of fee award against Mother and opposed Mother’s fee/fine claims | Denied — court found no basis to award sanctions against Father and enforced prior fee awards against Mother |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Heilman, 867 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (briefing rules require citation of pertinent authority)
- Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 856 A.2d 62 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to develop argument may result in waiver)
- Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court will not develop arguments for appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review in custody modification and special‑relief petitions is abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (issues not properly raised and developed will not be considered)