S.C. v. L.H.

Dec 18, 2023

OUTCOME: Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacating of Trial Court Order

Attorney Nonas-Hunter filed an appeal in an Child Custody matter, wherein Father was granted unsupervised custody, despite competent, credible evidence of record that he posed a threat of harm to the C ... hild. The Superior Court concluded that, 'after a comprehensive review of the notes of testimony from the parties’ custody trial, the expert reports, and the entire certified record in the matter, the trial court’s decision to grant Father unsupervised, overnight custodial time with Child is an abuse of discretion.' King v. King, 889 A.2d 630, 636 (Pa. Super. 2005) (in child custody matter, we may not alter trial court’s conclusions “provided they are supported by the record or unless they are manifestly unreasonable.”). The court’s findings are simply not supported by competent evidence of record. Moreover, while we defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations, we are not bound by the court’s deductions or inferences from its unsupported factual findings. V.B., supra. Simply put, the court’s decision today is not in Child’s best interests, the polestar of any custody analysis. The Superior Court Vacated the Trial Court's Order.

J.C.D., III and A.M.D. v. A.L.R. and T.A.D.-R.

Oct 18, 2023

OUTCOME: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Precedent

Upon her filing of a petition for allowance of appeal, Attorney Nonas-Hunter was granted allocatur to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing in a Child Custody matter that the Trial Court's order gran ... ting standing to Grandparents filing against parents in an intact marriage was appealable collateral order, i.e. the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost. In this particular matter, Attorney Nonas-Hunter argued "Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to parent their children, which includes their right to be free of custody litigation involving third parties." The Supreme Court majority opinion determined the order was not a collateral order, but only an interlocutory order, which is not appealable as a right. However, the Supreme Court decision was spilt, with a dissenting opinion as well as a concurring opinion issued.

JENNIFER LYNN ADAMS o/b/o T.E.A., a minor v. ROBERT L. ADAMS, JR.

Oct 17, 0024

OUTCOME: Pennsylvania Superior Court Precedent

Defendant filed an appeal to an order entered refusing his petition for contempt against a parent of a minor plaintiff in a Protection from Abuse matter arguing the Trial Court erred as a matter of law ... and abused its discretion in interpreting 23 Pa.C.S. §6114.1(a) as precluding a Defendant from filing a civil petition for contempt in a Protection From Abuse matter. While the language of the statute allows for a Plaintiff to specifically file such a petition for contempt against a Defendant, the language does not preclude a Defendant from filing the same petition for contempt against a Plaintiff when a Plaintiff fails to adhere to terms set forth in the underlying order. Further, the Supreme Court, not the General Assembly, is vested with the sole authority “to prescribe and modify general rules governing: (1) Practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts…” (42 Pa.C.S. §1722(a)(1). Even if the language of 23 Pa.C.S. §6114.1(a) could be tortured to construe that a Defendant is precluded from filing a petition for civil contempt in a Protection from Abuse matter, the General Assembly does not have the authority to create a statute governing the procedure and conduct of a court and the statute should be disregarded. Appellant further argued that not only a Plaintiff and a Defendant may be found in civil contempt, but the parent of a minor child who filed a petition on behalf of the minor, negotiated an agreement (with specific terms and obligations only the parent could perform) and entered into the agreed upon order on behalf of the minor Plaintiff can (and should) be liable for contempt in a Protection from Abuse matter. The Superior Court agreed with Defendant finding the Mother “acted as her minor daughter’s agent and legal representative in filing this action on her behalf. [Mother] negotiated the terms of the consent agreement with the assistance of counsel in exchange for [Defendant’s] agreement to the entry of an uncontested PFA order. [She] cannot claim she lacked actual knowledge of the PFA order which incorporated the consent agreement. Thus, the trial court had the inherent power to find [her in contempt to enforce the PFA order which was based on the consent agreement she had formulated with [Defendant]. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings to evaluate the merits of Appellant’s contempt petition.”

In Re: K.W., v. S.L. & M.L., v. G.G.

N/A

OUTCOME: