S.S. v. C.S.
754 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 12, 2016Background
- Parents divorced; custody disputes over four children (born 2004–2010). A September 1, 2015 custody order awarded primary physical custody to Mother and sole legal custody to Mother; that order was under de novo review in the trial court.
- In December 2015 Mother was arrested for DUI and endangering the welfare of a child; in January 2016 police responded to incidents of apparent intoxication while Mother had custody.
- Father filed an Emergency Petition (Jan 15, 2016) seeking sole custody and psychological/drug testing of Mother; the trial court imposed interim protective measures instead (supervised custody, required treatment, and random testing) and held multi-day hearings in January–February 2016.
- On February 23, 2016 the trial court entered an order continuing the September 1, 2015 custody regime but adding requirements that Mother continue treatment and submit to random drug/alcohol testing; the court characterized the order as interim relief pending the de novo custody trial.
- Father appealed the February 23, 2016 order to the Superior Court raising procedural and substantive challenges (failure to state reasons for interim orders, failure to order psychological evaluation, delay in hearing, bias, and illegality of the Sept. 1 order).
- The Superior Court concluded the February 2016 order was not final or collateral and therefore not appealable; it quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb. 23, 2016 order was appealable as a final custody order | Feb. 2016 order should be reviewable; trial court abused discretion | Order was interim emergency relief pending de novo custody trial and not intended as final | Not final or appealable; appeal quashed |
| Whether the trial court violated rules/statute by not stating reasoning in interim orders | Trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(a) and 23 Pa.C.S. §5323(d) by not providing written/reasoned findings | Findings of Fact were issued; statutory requirements for full findings apply to final custody awards after full trial, not interim emergency orders | No jurisdiction to review; court explained findings were sufficient for interim relief and not a final award |
| Whether a psychological exam of Mother was required after DUI/ EWOC charges | Father argued §5330 required psychological evaluation to assess risk | Trial court found Mother sought treatment, had family support, and issues appeared under control; psychological exam not ordered as emergency remedy | Issue intertwined with merits of custody; not separable on interlocutory review; appeal quashed |
| Whether collateral-order or emergency exceptions permit immediate appeal | Father invoked collateral order doctrine (Pa.R.A.P. 313) and emergency nature | Trial court and Superior Court: interim custody orders are not collateral/separable; emergency petitions do not create finality exception | Collateral-order doctrine inapplicable; emergency context does not make the order appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Veloric v. Doe, 123 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appealability of orders and jurisdictional limits)
- G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (test for finality of custody orders)
- In re F.B., 927 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 2007) (custody order wording relevant to finality)
- Miller v. Steinbach, 681 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1996) (interim custody orders are intertwined with merits and not collateral)
- Williams v. Thornton, 577 A.2d 215 (Pa. Super. 1990) (emergency petition orders are interlocutory)
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (denial of intervention in custody action can be a collateral, appealable order)