Opinion
J-A27014-17 No. 561 WDA 2017 No. 562 WDA 2017
12-18-2017
S.B., Appellee v. S.S., Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION-SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated March 16, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court at No(s): FD-15-008183-10 Appeal from the Order Dated March 16, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): FD-008183-10 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
S.S. (Mother) appeals from two orders, both dated March 16, 2017. The order designated at appeal 561 WDA 2017 denied in part and granted in part S.B.'s (Father) motion requesting an award of costs and legal fees relating to this protracted custody matter. The order designated at appeal 562 WDA 2017 directed the appointment of Mark Gubinsky, Esq., as an aftercare professional, acting under the guidance of the entity known as Family Bridges with a goal of facilitating the restoration of Mother's custody rights. After extensive review of the record in this matter, which includes documents relating to Mother's three prior appeals to this Court and an application requesting our Supreme Court to exercise its King's Bench powers, we affirm both orders.
Mother's appeals were consolidated by this Court sua sponte on April 26, 2017.
In the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, dated May 30, 2017, we note that the court requested the consolidation of these two appeals with the appeal at 74 WDA 2017. The trial court explained that the orders now on appeal "are part and parcel of the custody order entered o[n] December 14, 2016[,]" which is the subject of the earlier appeal. We are unable to comply with the trial court's request in that the decision in the appeal at 74 WDA 2017 was filed on October 20, 2017. See S.B. v. S.S., 74 WDA 2017, unpublished memorandum (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 20, 2017). --------
Mother filed a timely appeal accompanied by a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). She raises the following issues for our review:
1) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in appointing Mark Gubinsky, Esq.[,] as the Aftercare Professional
("ACP") where the law recognizes no such entity, and where such appointment is simply the Court['s] acquiescing to the demands of the discredited psychologist Randy Rand and his self-styled Family Bridges program?Mother's brief at 5-6.
2) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in granting authority to the ACP, and in deeming him some sort of "expert" where he has no such qualifications, [and] as such[,] is simply the [c]ourt and the ACP['s] acquiescing to the demands of the discredited psychologist Randy Rand and his self-styled Family Bridges program?
3) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in delegating judicial decision making to the ACP, where such is simply the [c]ourt['s] acquiescing to the demands of the discredited psychologist Randy Rand and his self-styled Family Bridges program?
4) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in ordering [Mother] to pay the ACP's costs and fees?
5) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in ordering [Mother] to pay $2400 for 1.5 days of Dr. McGroarty's testimony, as there was no legal or factual basis for such award?
6) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in ordering [Mother] to pay $2740 in counsel's fees for 1.5 days of Dr. McGroarty's testimony, as there was [no] legal or factual basis for such award?
7) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in ordering [Mother] to pay $8000 for half of the costs of the Family Bridges Workshop, as there was no legal or factual basis for such award, and the award included costs which were unconnected to the Family Bridges Workshop?
8) Did the trial court legally err and abuse its discretion in ordering [Mother] to pay $3092.50 for counsel's fees incurred to respond to [Mother's] King's Bench Application, as there was no legal or factual basis for such award, and this [c]ourt had no jurisdiction to even consider such an award?
As noted above, we have undertaken a comprehensive review of the certified record. We have also examined the briefs of the parties, the applicable law and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Kim Berkeley Clark of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated May 31, 2017. We conclude that Judge Clark's opinion properly disposes of the issues presented by Mother in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinion as our own and affirm the orders on that basis.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/18/2017
Image materials not available for display.