Opinion
J-S01009-17 No. 1411 MDA 2016
01-13-2017
L.L.L. Appellee v. S.T.L. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
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.:
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
PARTIES AS THERE WAS NO MINOR CHILD BETWEEN THEM AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT?(Father's Brief at 6).
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?
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, 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. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/13/2017
Image materials not available for display.