Contempt, Enforcement, Modification, Reconsideration, and Appeals of Pennsylvania Orders
Enforcement and Contempt of Pennsylvania custody orders
In Pennsylvania, if either parent of a minor child fails to comply with a custody order, a request for a hearing on the issue of contempt of the custody order must be presented and a hearing must be conducted by a judge to determine if the person has violated the order of court. If a person willfully disobeys a Pennsylvania custody order, the judge could find that person to be in contempt of the court order and sanctions could be imposed.
Sanctions for disobeying a Pennsylvania custody order could include imprisonment, awarding make-up days or time for missed periods of custody, assessment of attorney fees, or a transfer custody of to the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent continually violates a custody order. Pennsylvania and most other states have adopted some version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which provides that courts will recognize and enforce custody orders entered in other counties, states and countries so as to prevent child abductions or parental kidnapping. In other words, a custody order entered by a court that had the authority to enter the order will be enforced by the courts where the children are actually located except in rare circumstances.
Relocating to another county or state without advance notice to the non-custodial parent and an order of court permitting the relocation is frowned upon by the courts and could result in severe repercussions, including loss of custody rights. For this reason, it is best for the custodial parent to inform the non-custodial parent immediately if he or she wishes to move out of their current county or state and to inform the non-custodial parent of the reasons for the move. If an agreement cannot be reached regarding the move, the custodial parent should immediately file a request for a hearing so that the judge can determine if the children will be permitted to relocate with the custodial parent. A temporary hearing on the relocation issue is called a Plowman hearing after the PA Superior Court case which permits such temporary hearings. A final hearing on the issue of a parent's relocation with the minor children is called a Gruber hearing after the PA Superior Court case which sets forth the analysis the family court judge must make to determine whether relocation should be granted.
Modification of Pennsylvania child custody orders
Parents are free to agree to informally modify an existing Pennsylvania child custody order at any time. However, if either party wishes to modify a Pennsylvania custody order and an agreement cannot be reached by the parents, either parent has the right to seek to modify the custody order through the court process. Modification of Pennsylvania custody orders can be presented to the court at any time until the minor children's eighteenth birthdays. Pennsylvania judges are required to consider the best interests of minor children and may grant a modification even if there has not been a change in circumstances. A request for modification of an existing custody order must be filed to begin the formal court modification process. The UCCJEA also provides that modification of a Pennsylvania child custody order must be requested from the court which had entered the most recent order. If the children have resided in a different county or state than the court that entered the prior order, a request can be made to transfer any requests for modification to the county and state where the children have resided for at least six months.
Enforcement and Contempt of Pennsylvania support orders
In recent years, enforcement of Pennsylvania support orders has become a priority in the family courts. The most common way of enforcing Pennsylvania support orders is through the use of wage attachments. A wage attachment is an order of court entered that requires the employer of a person owing a support obligation to subtract the court ordered amount for support from the employee's wages and mail the amount owed to the court. Federal laws provide that support orders entered in one state will be enforced in another state.
A person who has failed to pay a support order as directed may be found in Civil Contempt of the support order. If the person owing support fails to make their support payments on a timely basis, the past due amount is called support arrearages. If a person owes arrearages, a judgment may be entered by the Pennsylvania family court for the total amount of past due child support or spousal support and that person's assets may be seized to pay this judgment. Furthermore, failure to obey a Pennsylvania court order for support can result in a term of imprisonment, sentence to a half-way house that assists the defendant if finding a full-time, wage attachable job, a fine, suspension of any state-issued licenses (including licenses to engage in certain professions), reports to credit bureaus, liens on real estate, and interception of federal income tax refunds. If a person fails to appear for a support hearing, a bench warrant may be issued for the person's arrest. Failure to appear at any court hearing is considered Criminal Contempt and can result in incarceration. In Allegheny County, a team of Deputies from the Allegheny County Sheriff's Department has been specifically assigned by the Sheriff to locate and arrest individuals charged with Criminal Contempt for failure to appear at support hearings. If a Deputy Sheriff is forced to locate the individual to bring them to court, the individual generally is incarcerated for some period of time. The Allegheny County Sheriff's Office also publishes on their website a list of the most serious Allegheny County non-support offenders along with their pictures and requests that anyone with information concerning these Allegheny County deadbeat parents (both mom and dad) contact the non-support and fugitive warrant detectives in their department.
Modification of Pennsylvania support orders
A Pennsylvania child or support order or an order for payment of alimony can be modified if there has been a significant change of circumstances. The right to modify the final Pennsylvania support order will be retroactive only to the date the request for modification has been filed with the court. In other words, the person responsible for paying support must pay according to the existing order until the existing order has been changed by the court. Grounds for modification include, but are not limited to, increases or decreases in income and the minor child obtaining age eighteen and graduating from high school.
Enforcement of Equitable Distribution Orders and Marriage Settlement Agreements
In Pennsylvania, Marriage Settlement Agreements are considered to be the same as other legally binding contracts entered into by individuals and will be enforced by the Pennsylvania family law courts. Orders for equitable distribution of marital assets and debts will also be enforced by the family law judges. Failure to comply with a Marriage Settlement Agreement or equitable distribution order can result in the imposition of any number of sanctions including imposition of attorneys' fees, seizure of assets, or incarceration.
Modification of Equitable Distribution Orders or Marriage Settlement Agreements
Marriage Settlement Agreements and PA equitable distribution orders are rarely modified. Generally, modification of such agreements or orders only happens if there has been fraud, duress, coercion, or a mutual mistake in the drafting of the order or agreement.
Exceptions, Reconsideration, Reconsideration, and Appeals of PA Orders and Appellate Rights in Pennsylvania
Many Pennsylvania county courts employ attorneys or other trained individuals to act as support hearing officers, conciliators, custody mediators, and support and equitable distribution masters. These hearing officers, conciliators, or masters often act as the initial decision-makers in support, custody and equitable distribution cases. If a party does not agree with their decision, the party can file exceptions or an appeal and request that a trial judge decide their cases.
In some Pennsylvania counties, the judge conducts a "de novo" hearing, or in other words, starts from the beginning with testimony and evidence from the parties. In other counties, the judge will make their decision by reviewing the recommendation of the master, hearing officer, or conciliator, transcript of the testimony, other pleadings or documents relevant to the issue, and briefs submitted by the parties. In the later situation, no additional testimony or evidence is permitted. If a party does not agree with the trial judge's decision, another way to seek relief is present a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial judge's decision or to appeal the decision of the family division trial court judge to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
In Pennsylvania, the parties have an absolute right to file an appeal to Pennsylvania Superior Court. The PA Superior Court will assign at least three judges to review the trial court's decision, the transcript of the hearing at the trial level, other relevant pleadings, and briefs submitted by the parties' attorneys. Additional testimony and evidence will not be considered by the PA Superior Court. PA appellate attorneys argue the position of their family law clients to the panel of Pennsylvania Superior Court judges while the PA Superior Court hears arguments in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, or Philadelphia. If either or both of the parties are dissatisfied with the PA Superior Court's decision, they may request a review of the case by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court . However, there is no absolute right to have a case heard by the PA Supreme Court in family law matters. Generally, the PA Supreme Court will grant review of the PA Superior Court's opinion only if the case involves an issue of substantial public importance. Judges elected to serve on the PA Supreme Court are called "Justices".
The decision to appeal or request reconsideration of an order must be made promptly. Most appeals or the presentation of a Motion for Reconsideration of a PA trial court judge's order must be filed within thirty days of the decision. However, there is generally only twenty days to file an appeal to the decisions made by Hearing Officers, Masters, and Conciliators. If the party fails to file the appeal within the requisite time period, the right to appeal may be lost.
Contact our Pennsylvania family law office
Our law firm's family law attorneys are available to assist you with modifying or enforcing your Pennsylvania family law orders of court. Our Pittsburgh law office also has experienced PA family law appellate attorneys and are able to represent family law clients in filing appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court or Pennsylvania Supreme Court. To inquire about scheduling a consultation in our Allegheny County family law offices located in downtown Pittsburgh and Whitehall Borough or in our Butler County office located in Cranberry Township, click here or contact us by telephone at (412) 281-9906 for our Pittsburgh office, (724) 776-9906 for our Cranberry office, or toll-free at 1(866) PA-DIVORCE or 1(866) PA-CUSTODY. In some circumstances, telephone appointments are available.
Our PA attorneys accept family law contempt, enforcement, and modification cases in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Armstrong County (Kittanning), Beaver County, Butler County, Somerset County, Washington County, and Westmoreland County (Greensburg). Our PA family lawyers accept Pennsylvania family law cases involving contempt, enforcement, or modification from other Western Pennsylvania counties including Clarion County, Fayette County, Greene County, Indiana County, Lawrence County (New Castle), Mercer County, and Venango County on a case-by-case basis. Our Pittsburgh law office accepts appellate cases involving family law issues from any county in Pennsylvania.
Learn more, read PA family law appellate cases from PA Superior Court & PA Supreme Court
Takosky v. Henning - PA Superior Court dismissed appeal of family court finding defendant in contempt of Protection from Abuse order when family court did not enter any sanctions or term of imprisonment against defendant.
Costlow v. Costlow - Husband appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court was dismissed when he failed to file his appeal within 30 days of the final order. Costlow v Costlow, 2006 Pa. Super 360.
Getty v. Getty - Husband's appeal of wife's award of 65% of his pension was dismissed when husband filed and was granted a Motion for Reconsideration and husband failed to file his appeal within 30 days after reconsideration by the trial court was granted. Getty v. Getty, 2007 Pa. Super. 39
Dalrymple v. Kilishek - The trial court properly awarded attorney fees against the husband for obdurate and vexatious behavior in failing to provide documents to wife's counsel that were requested as part of equitable distribution of the marital assets. Dalrymple v Kilishek, 2007 Pa. Super. 83
Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin - The Pennsylvania Superior Court found father's appeal to be without merit and remanded the case to the trial court for the trial court to impose attorney's fees against father. Robinson-Austin v Robinson-Austin, 2007 Pa. Super. 98
Busse v. Busse - Wife was properly awarded counsel fees in conjunction with her claim for alimony pendente lite (APL) given the discrepancy of the parties' incomes and husband's bad faith in the litigation. Matters of credibility are determined by the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless no facts appear to justify the court's finding. The trial court properly used the date of separation for valuing the parties' business where there were allegations that husband had dissipated the value of the business asset after the parties' separation. Busse v Busse, 2007 Pa. Super. 100
Prol v. Prol - Wife appeals the order which granted the petition for special relief of Husband and ordered the forfeiture of Wife's interest in Husband's Kimberly-Clark pension for Wife's counsel's failure to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the pension. The Superior Court held that Wife substantially complied with the court's directive and forfeiture of Wife's interest would not be equitable or fair. Prol v Prol, 2007 Pa. Super. 313
Godfrey v. Godfrey - A defendant who has been found to be in willful noncompliance of a support obligation and found in civil contempt may be sentenced to jail for up to 6 months, given a fine of up to $1,000, or up to 1 year probation; however, court must set a purge condition allowing defendant to be released from jail. Trial court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has the present ability to comply with purge condition. Both parties must supply court with any changes in address within 7 days or else notice of hearings sent to prior address will not excuse failure to appear at hearing.
Chen v. Chen - PA Supreme Court ruled that a child can not seek to intervene in the parents' legal matters to attempt to enforce the terms of the parents' agreement regarding support as set forth in their marriage or property settlement agreement.
Sirio v. Sirio - The PA Superior Court reviewed case involving high-income Melzer analysis for child support. PA Superior Court held that the Hearing Officer should have considered the mother's counsel fee request 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351 which allows awarded of counsel fees to the plaintiff in a support action. The award of counsel fees because of Father's obdurate, vexatious or dilatory behavior pursuant to section 2503 does not prevent an award of additional counsel fees under section 4351. Sirio v. Sirio, 2008 PA Super 133
Krebs v. Krebs - The Superior Court held that mother was entitled to retroactive modification of the child support order beyond the period that she had a petition for modification filed because father failed in his affirmative duty to report to the court his increase in earnings. The Court also explained that an award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff in a support action may be appropriate in certain circumstances and that the court should consider (1) whether the obligor's unreasonable or obstreperous conduct impeded the determination of an appropriate support order; (2) whether the obligor mounted a fair and reasonable defense in a child support order; (3) whether the obligor's failure to fulfill his moral and financial obligation to support his children required legal action to force him to accept his responsibilities; and (4) whether the financial positions and financial needs of the parties are disparate. Krebs v. Krebs, 2008 PA Super 29
Faust v. Walker - The PA Superior Court held that the domestic relations section is granted the power to issue orders to secure assets to satisfy support obligations and arrearages by intercepting or seizing judgments or settlements. Faust v. Walker, 2008 PA Super 38
Annechino v. Joire - Wife claimed that since the parties' marriage settlement agreement was not incorporated into the parties' Divorce Decree and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the trial court did not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and the husband's only remedy is a separate civil action in equity. The Superior Court held that section 3105(a) of the Divorce Code controls which permits any agreement entered related to the divorce action to be enforced by the family courts. Annechino v. Joire, 2008 PA Super 50
Hopkins v. Byes - The PA Superior Court held that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by imposing $500 attorney's fees as a sanction for the mother's failure to abide by a custody order, without first ascertaining mother's ability to pay the sanction. Hopkins v. Byes, 2008 PA Super 172
PA Superior and Supreme Court cases involving Adoption
Learn more, read News & Articles on PA family law topics
Disclaimer
The statements in this section are based on Pennsylvania law and have been issued to inform and not advise. The statements are general in nature and individual facts in a given case may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here.
