Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1130 (Pa. Super. 2018).

The UCCJEA governs subject matter jurisdiction between different states in custody matters. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1127 (Pa. Super. 2018); see also T.D. v. M.H., 219 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2019) ("The purpose of the UCCJEA is to avoid jurisdictional competition, promote cooperation between courts, deter the abduction of children, avoid relitigating custody decisions of other states, and facilitate the enforcement of custody orders of other states. One of the main purposes of the UCCJEA was to clarify the exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the child custody decree.

Thus, we agree that the trial court did not comply with the plain language of Rule 1915.4. Nevertheless, it is apparent Father did not suffer prejudice. See J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1130 (Pa. Super. 2018) ("[Relief] is not warranted merely because some irregularity occurred during the trial . . .; the moving party must demonstrate . . . . that he or she has suffered prejudice from the mistake[.]"). First, with respect to removal of the supervision condition of Mother's physical custody, the trial court eliminated that requirement on July 20, 2018, after the first day of the hearing.

Thus, we agree that the trial court did not comply with the plain language of Rule 1915.4. Nevertheless, it is apparent Father did not suffer prejudice. See J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1130 (Pa. Super. 2018) ("[Relief] is not warranted merely because some irregularity occurred during the trial . . .; the moving party must demonstrate . . . . that he or she has suffered prejudice from the mistake[.]"). First, with respect to removal of the supervision condition of Mother's physical custody, the trial court eliminated that requirement on July 20, 2018, after the first day of the hearing.

The UCCJEA governs subject matter jurisdiction between different states in custody matters. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1127 (Pa. Super. 2018); see also T.D. v. M.H., 219 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2019) ("The purpose of the UCCJEA is to avoid jurisdictional competition, promote cooperation between courts, deter the abduction of children, avoid relitigating custody decisions of other states, and facilitate the enforcement of custody orders of other states. One of the main purposes of the UCCJEA was to clarify the exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the child custody decree.

Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116, 1122 (Pa. 2000). Harmless error exists when, inter alia, the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence, which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 275 A.3d 513, 525 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 719 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc)).

Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).