T.L.L. v. R.F.P.
T.L.L. v. R.F.P. No. 285 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Parents (Father R.F.P., an attorney, and Mother T.L.L.) had a shared physical custody order for three children entered by agreement in 2011/2013; disputes over communication and holiday schedules followed.
- Mother filed petitions to modify custody and two contempt petitions (Aug. 2014, Dec. 2014); hearings occurred in June and November 2015.
- Trial court modified custody: reduced twice‑weekly midweek exchanges to a single weekly exchange for all children, and granted Mother extra Thursday–Friday time with the oldest child (R.P.) to address emotional needs.
- Court found Father in contempt for failing to surrender children to Mother on Christmas Day 2014, ordered Father to pay $500 in counsel fees to Mother; another contempt petition was dismissed.
- Father appealed pro se raising recusal, hearsay/children-as‑party issues, alleged improper co‑parenting requirements, that the contempt finding was pretextual, the custodial-time reduction, and the attorney‑fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recusal of trial judge | Judge should remain because she could be impartial despite prior rulings; no evidence of bias presented | Judge claimed judge was biased, showed sympathy toward Mother, admitted hearsay to Mother’s advantage, treated children as parties, ignored his contempt filings | Denial of recusal affirmed — judge’s self‑analysis and record did not show bias or appearance of impropriety |
| 2. Use of children’s out‑of‑court statements / hearsay | Children’s statements were used to show their state of mind or were corroborated; emails were admissible as opposing‑party statements and Father waived hearsay objection | Father argued children aren’t parties and court improperly admitted hearsay (emails and mother’s reports of children’s statements) | Court treated those statements as non‑hearsay (state of mind) or admissible opposing‑party statements; any error was harmless or waived |
| 3. Custody communication requirement (minimal vs. higher standard) | Court required greater co‑parenting communication to protect children from duplicative appointments/conflicts; order is within court’s discretion | Father contended only a minimal cooperation standard is required and the order imposed an unlawful heightened requirement exposing him to contempt | Trial court’s communication requirements upheld as reasonable and in the children’s best interests |
| 4. Contempt finding, modification of R.P.’s time, and counsel fees | Mother argued Father willfully violated clear Christmas custody order, modification and fee award were based on best‑interest analysis and contempt remedies | Father said Christmas mistake was honest, contempt finding was pretextual and used to punish him, reduction of R.P.’s time unjustified, and fee award unlawful under the Child Custody Act | Contempt finding and $500 counsel‑fee sanction upheld (willful failure to return children). Custody modification (including R.P.’s time change) affirmed as supported by best‑interests factors |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and custody‑modification principles)
- Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (burden on petitioner to show modification is in child’s best interest)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements required for contempt finding)
- Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 2001) (purpose of contempt power and sanctions)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 556 A.2d 1379 (Pa. Super. 1989) (burden to prove non‑compliance by preponderance in contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Druce, 577 Pa. 581 (Pa. 2004) (recusal two‑prong self‑analysis and appearance of impropriety test)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (burden on movant to prove judicial bias)
- Schwarcz v. Schwarcz, 548 A.2d 556 (Pa. Super. 1988) (use of out‑of‑court statements to show state of mind)
- K.D. by K.H.D. v. J.D., 696 A.2d 232 (Pa. Super. 1997) (limits on admitting victim statements in certain family contexts)
- In re J.T., 607 A.2d 271 (Pa. Super. 1992) (treatment of children’s statements in dependency/termination contexts)
- Mrozek v. James, 780 A.2d 670 (Pa. Super. 2001) (attorney’s fees as compensatory/coercive sanction for civil contempt)