J-S01009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
L.L.L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
:
v. :
:
:
S.T.L. :
:
Appellant : No. 1411 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Civil Division at No(s): 2007-FC-40839
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2017
Appellant, S.T.L. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the emergency
petition for contempt filed by Appellee, L.L.L. (“Mother”), for Father’s failure
to comply with a prior custody order concerning T.L. (“Child”). We affirm.
The trial court fully and comprehensively sets forth the relevant facts
and procedural history. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT LACK JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
ITS ORDER AS…CHILD REACHED THE AGE OF THE
MAJORITY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT?
DID THE TRIAL COURT LACK JURISDICTION OVER THE
J-S01009-17
PARTIES AS THERE WAS NO MINOR CHILD BETWEEN
THEM AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT?
WAS THERE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
TRIAL TO ESTABLISH [FATHER] WAS IN CONTEMPT, AS
[MOTHER] FAILED TO ENTER ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF THE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT?
WAS IT AN ERROR TO FIND [FATHER] IN CONTEMPT AS
THE UNDERLYING ORDER WAS VOIDED PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION?
(Father’s Brief at 6).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Trish
Corbett, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. (See Trial Court
Opinion, filed September 15, 2016, at 4-8) (finding: (1-2, 4) when court
issued May 20, 2016 custody order, court was aware that Child would turn
18 years old on day after that order required Father to return Child to
Mother’s custody; court had authority and jurisdiction to find Father in
contempt for violating May 20, 2016 custody order, even though as soon as
Child reached age of 18, (a) court lacked jurisdiction to enter further custody
orders regarding Child; and (b) previous custody orders concerning Child
became null and void; (3) at contempt hearing, Child testified he told Father
that he did not want to return to Mother, and Father replied he would not
force Child to go; Father did not try or direct Child to return to Mother’s
home; Father did not require Child to go with Mother when Mother arrived at
Father’s home to retrieve Child; Father told Child that once Child turned 18,
-2-
J-S01009-17
Child could decide where to live and attend school, pursuant to May 20,
2016 custody order; however, Father had obligation to return Child to
Mother’s custody on June 21, 2016; Father manipulated Child so Child would
not want to return to Mother’s custody; Father also influenced Child’s
testimony at contempt hearing; evidence presented at contempt hearing
was sufficient to establish Father willfully violated May 20, 2016 custody
order). The record supports the court’s decision. Thus, we affirm on the
basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2017
-3-
Circulated 12/29/2016 02:17 PM
L.L.L., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff :OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY
vs. CIVIL ACTION-LAW
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
S.T.L., No. 2007-FC-40839
Defendant
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OPINION
This Court issued an Order of Contempt against the Defendant, S.T.L., filed on July
21, 2016. On August 22, 2016, a Notice of Appeal was filed by the Defendant, and the
Opinion in support of that Order is now ripe andas such, is addressed below on this 151h day
·' j
of September, 2016.
CORBETT,J.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
This case involves a high conflict custody dispute over the parties' minor child, T.L.,
1
(hereinafter "minor child"). This file is replete with various
petitions filed by the parties since the action commenced on July 6, 2007, when Plaintiff,
L.L.L (hereinafter "Mother"), filed a Complaint in Divorce against Defendant, S.T.L.
(hereinafter "Father"). (Complaint 07/0/6/07). Pursuantto an Order dated February 15,
2013, the parties have shared legal custody of the minor child. (Order 02/15/13). Mother has
primary physical custody of the minor child and Father has partial physical custody every
Tuesday and Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and e~_~*f~illJtfle~~-D.OitrnmFriday
• I Ii'~ l:1 :JO' ~ (Wtj' -1 "'
after school until Sunday at 9:00 p.m. (Order 05/13/16).
'·1'