Bennett, M. v. Gibbs, L. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S31035-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 M.B., : : : : : : : : : Appellee v. L.G., Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2947 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered on August 1, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Domestic Relations Division, No. 2010-31483 BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2014 pro se, from an Order finding her in contempt K.G.B., and requiring her to pay a fine and counsel fees. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant underlying facts as follows: The parties are the parents of one child: [K.G.B.] (DOB: 10/10/02). On July 18, 2012, Father filed a petition for contempt against Mother in which he alleged that Mother willfully interfered with his custodial time by filing a frivolous protection complaint with the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family further alleged that Mother withheld custody on the weekend of June 15, 2012[,] and prevented contact between Father and child at the create a 2012 summer schedule per the current [C]ustody [O]rder, does not utilize the Our Family Wizard program per the [C]ustody [O]rder[fn] and violated the legal custody provision of the [C]ustody [O]rder. J-S31035-14 ___________________________________________________ [fn] On March 6, 2012, the [trial court] found Mother in contempt, in part, for her failure to utilize the Our Family Wizard program. Mother appealed this Order, which was consequently affirmed by the Superior Court in [a memorandum] filed January 29, 2013. [See M.B. v. L.G., 64 A.3d 289 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished ___________________________________________________ On January 11, 2013, Mother filed a contempt petition in which she alleged that, on December 9, 2012, Father was 33 minutes late, and on December 12, 2012, Father was 16 minutes late, returning the child. Mother also alleged that on January 6, 2013, Father failed to return [K.G.B.] until the next day at 10:04 p.m. On January 23, 2013, Mother filed a Petition for Contempt in which she alleged that, on January 21, 2013, Father was ten minutes late returning [K.G.B.] On February 28, 2013, Mother filed a Contempt Petition in which she alleged that, on February 3, 2013, Father was 20 minutes late returning [K.G.B.] Mother also objected to the fact that Father picked [K.G.B.] up from school approximately 12 minutes early as [K.G.B.] missed school work. On June 8, 2013, Mother filed a petition for contempt with regard to the weekends of April 26, 2013[,] and June 14, 2013, in which she had custody of [K.G.B.] Mother also generally alleged that, per messages relayed from [K.G.B.], Father makes derogatory comments about her to [K.G.B.] and to Father discusses court-related information with [K.G.B.] Trial Court Opinion, 7/30/13, at 1-2 (footnote in original, some footnotes omitted). Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing on the contempt Petitions. The trial court found both parties in contempt for violating the terms of the Custody Order. Specifically, Mother was found in contempt of the Custody -2- J-S31035-14 fees. Mother filed a timely Notice of Appeal.1 On appeal, Mother raises the following questions for our review: 1. Whether the court erred by find[ing] Mother in civil contempt when Mother attempted to comply [with the Custody Order?] 2. blatant violation of the parties legal custody provision[?] 3. Whether the court erred and showed bias in not finding Father in contempt on all contempt motions brought by Mother[?] 4. to have minor child testify[?] 5. Whether court erred in imposing [excessive] [] fees and fines[?] Brief for Appellant at 5 (numbers added).2 In reviewing contempt orders, we must consider that [e]ach court is the exclusive judge of contempt against its process. The contempt power is essential to the preservation of from falling into disrepute. When reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellant court must place great reliance upon the discretion of the trial judge. On appeal from a court order holding a party in contempt of court, our scope of review is very narrow. We are limited to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa. Super. 2001). 1 Father does not appeal the contempt findings against him. 2 as there are questions to be section, we will address those claims that Mother has properly preserved. -3- J-S31035-14 In her first issue, Mother asserts that the trial court improperly found her in contempt because she made a good faith attempt to comply with the custody order. Brief for Appellant at 10. She argues that she did not use the Our Family Wizard program because she could not afford to do so and contends that she was not in contempt because she provided emails Id. The Father introduced evidence that Mother last logged in to the Our Family Wizard Program on June 1, 2012, and Mother conceded that the last email she sent from the program was in 2012. Pursuant to paragraph schedules (including activities that occur during his or her custodial time) so that the other party may be kept abreast of the school activities, school holidays, doctor/dentist appointments and any activities, including but not limited to, testimony revealed that [K.G.B.] has been involved in many activities since 2012 (which were obviously not inputted on the Our Family Wizard the program has a direct effect on [F]ather, the [trial c]ourt finds Mother in contempt on this issue.[fn] [fn] Mother attempted to argue that Father agreed to use means of communication other than the Our Family Wizard program. However, [the trial court] was not persuaded by this argument (introduced as Mwell as Our Family Wizard that she could not use the Our Family Wizard program because she could not afford its cost of $99 per month. However, when questioned by defense counsel[,] it was revealed that Mother did not attempt to contact any representatives from the program to inquire about a payment plan or a price reduction. -4- J-S31035-14 Trial Court Opinion, 7/30/13, at 2-3 (footnote in original). Upon our review of the record, we agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court. See id. Mother also argues that the trial court failed to remain impartial and unbiased in finding her in contempt. Brief for Appellant at 10-11. Initially, Questions. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Further, she has not demonstrated that the trial court was biased in finding her in contempt of the custody Order. Thus, we cannot grant Mother relief. In her third issue, Mother argues that the trial court erred in not finding Father in contempt on all contempt Petitions. Brief for Appellant at 10. 2(a) of the custody Order (regarding transportation) states, in when he or she is approximately 10 minutes from the assigned meeting place. The parties shall make every effort to be on time, and in the event one party is repeatedly late, the court will *** With regard to December 12, 2012, January 21, 2013, and February 3, 2013, Mother did not provide evidence that she complied with the ten minute notification provision, and therefore, the [trial c]ourt cannot find [F]ather in contempt. Nor does [the trial court] find Father in contempt with regard to the weekends of April 26, 2013[,] and June 14, 2013[,] as Mother maintained physical custody of [K.G.B.] during these times. -5- J-S31035-14 Trial Court Opinion, 7/30/13, at 5-6. (footnotes omitted). We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis. See id. Mother next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 12. K.G.B. twice already. It is evident that the child is weary of the battle between his parents and [the trial court] did not want to place him in the pon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its demonstrated that such testimony is required, as the trial court found both parties engaged in disparagement. See id. Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning of the trial court on this issue. See id. 3 3 We note Mother also raised a claim regarding the fines in her Statement of Questions. However, Mother does not set forth a supporting argument in the Argument section of her brief. Thus, this claim is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); See also Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007) (waiving ap discerns no abuse of discretion in this regard. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g) (stating that a party who willfully fails to comply with a custody order may be punished by, inter alia, a fine of not more than $500 and/or counsel fees). -6- J-S31035-14 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/18/2014 -7-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.