When there is a finding of contempt in a child custody matter, which occurs when a party violates a court order, the standard of review is whether the trial court committed a "clear abuse of discretion." G.A. v. D.L. , 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa. Super. 2013). B. This Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Finding Appellant In Contempt

This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being of the child.G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 268-269 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the trial court found that, given "Father's literal obsession with [G.'s] weight" and the "emotional damage" it may cause to G.'s self-esteem, Mother is "more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing relationship with [G.] adequate for [her] emotional needs[.

It is well-settled that a party must file a petition with the trial court when seeking a modification of an existing custody arrangement. See P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702, 706 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that a trial court "may not permanently modify a custody order without having a petition for modification before it.") (citation omitted); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5338(a) (stating that "[u]pon petition, a court may modify a custody order to serve the best interest of the child."); G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269-70 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that where a petition to modify custody has been filed, the parties must be provided with an opportunity to prepare and advocate their position in response to the petition). Here, Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody seeking primary physical custody of Child.

This [C]ourt also has stated that each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process.G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must prove certain distinct elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

This [C]ourt also has stated that each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process.G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must prove certain distinct elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

Pennsylvania appellate courts typically review trial court contempt orders for an abuse of discretion, "plac[ing] great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge," and reversing only where "the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record." G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 268-69 (Pa. Super. 2013). Appellate courts in other jurisdictions have deferred to lower courts' interpretations of their own orders when determining whether an alleged contemnor had sufficient notice and understanding of what conduct was proscribed to sustain a finding of contempt.

Pennsylvania appellate courts typically review trial court contempt orders for an abuse of discretion, "plac[ing] great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge," and reversing only where "the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record." G.A. v. D.L. , 72 A.3d 264, 268-69 (Pa. Super. 2013). Appellate courts in other jurisdictions have deferred to lower courts’ interpretations of their own orders when determining whether an alleged contemnor had sufficient notice and understanding of what conduct was proscribed to sustain a finding of contempt.

The Court is limited to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion, and places great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge. See G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa. Super. 2013). An abuse of discretion

G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 269 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

We review a custody order for an abuse of discretion. G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264, 268 (Pa.Super. 2013).