J-S75031-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.R., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
R.C.A., : No. 1420 EDA 2016
Appellant
Appeal from the Order April 7, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Domestic Relations at No(s): No. 1103 DR 2015,
No. 1732 CV 2016
BEFORE: BOWES, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2016
R.C.A. (“Father”) appeals, pro se, from the Order adopting the
Recommendation of the Custody Conciliator as an Interim Order of Court
(“Interim Order”). We quash the appeal.
On March 7, 2016, M.R. (“Mother”) filed a Complaint in Custody,
seeking sole legal and physical custody of their minor daughter, S.A. Father
was in prison at the time of filing, and will remain in prison until
approximately March 2020. The trial court ordered Mother and Father to
attend a custody conciliation conference, which was held on April 1, 2016.
Father did not attend, nor was he represented at, the custody conciliation
conference. The Custody Conciliator issued a Recommendation the same
day, which would grant Mother sole legal and physical custody of S.A. On
April 7, 2016, the trial court issued an Interim Order, adopting the
J-S75031-16
Recommendation. Father, pro se, filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a
court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement.1
Initially, before we may consider the merits of Father’s underlying
claim, we must determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the
appeal. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341, an appeal may be taken as of right only
from a final order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Generally, “a custody order will
be considered final and appealable only if it is both: 1) entered after the
court has completed its hearings on the merits; and 2) intended by the court
to constitute a complete resolution of the custody claims pending between
the parties.” G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. Super. 1996).
Here, Father appeals from the Interim Order adopting the Custody
Conciliator’s Recommendation. In its Opinion, the trial court stated that it
“[has] not yet held a hearing on the merits, and [the] Order was not
intended to constitute complete resolution of the custody action.” Trial
Court Opinion, 6/20/16, at 5. Additionally, the Recommendation indicated
that Father could still file a petition to request another conciliation
____________________________________________
1
Father did not file a Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal
with his Notice of Appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and
1925(b). However, on May 5, 2016, the trial court ordered Father to file a
Concise Statement, and he complied. The trial court determined that Mother
did not suffer prejudice as a result of the delay. See Trial Court Opinion,
6/20/16, at 3; see also In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa. Super.
2009) (holding that “there is no per se rule requiring quashal or dismissal of
a defective notice of appeal,” and dismissal is inappropriate where the
appellee has suffered no prejudice).
-2-
J-S75031-16
conference. Thus, the Interim Order is not a final, appealable order, as
defined by Pa.R.A.P. 341. See G.B., 670 A.2d at 721 (quashing appeal
where custody order was entered before the trial court conducted a hearing
on the merits, and the order was not intended to constitute a complete
resolution of the issues).2
Because the Interim Order adopting the Recommendation is not final
and appealable, Father’s challenge to the Interim Order must be quashed.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/11/2016
____________________________________________
2
Father’s appeal from the trial court’s Interim Order is not an interlocutory
appeal as of right, as defined by Pa.R.A.P. 311, an interlocutory appeal by
permission, as defined by Pa.R.A.P. 312, or an appeal taken from a collateral
order, as defined by Pa.R.A.P. 313. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/16, at 4.
-3-
J-S75031-16
-4-