Eyer v. Gelsinger
Docket Number | 945 MDA 2023,J-S43016-23 |
Decision Date | 29 November 2023 |
Parties | DRAKE L. EYER v. MEGAN E. GELSINGER Appellant v. TAMMY G. HAWBAKER |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant Megan E. Gelsinger ("Mother"), appeals from the order entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition filed by Tammy G. Hawbaker ("Paternal Grandmother") seeking standing to intervene in the custody action between Mother and Drake L. Eyer ("Father").[1] We quash the appeal.
In its opinion, the trial court set forth most of the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
(Trial Court Opinion, filed August 3, 2023, at 2-3) (internal italics and record citations omitted). Following the hearing, the court granted Paternal Grandmother's petition seeking standing to intervene by order filed June 29, 2023. Specifically, the court granted the petition pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2) ( ). The court also entered a separate temporary order, granting Paternal Grandmother partial physical custody every Saturday from 12:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., pending a further hearing. On June 21, 2023, Mother filed the current appeal challenging the court's order granting Paternal Grandmother's petition to intervene.[2] Mother raises five issues for our review:
As a preliminary matter, we note that on July 18, 2023, this Court issued Mother a rule to show cause why the current appeal should not be quashed or dismissed, as the order granting Paternal Grandmother's petition to intervene did not appear to be a final or otherwise appealable order. Mother responded on July 24, 2023, claiming the order was appealable under the collateral order doctrine per Pa.R.A.P. 313,[3] and pursuant to K.W. v. S.L., 157 A.3d 498 (Pa.Super. 2017) and K.C. v. L.A., 633 Pa. 722, 128 A.3d 774 (2015).
Recently, our Supreme Court issued its decision in J.C.D. v. A.L.R.,__ Pa.__, __A.3d__, 2023 WL 6853126 (Pa. filed Oct. 18, 2023). In that case, the Court considered whether an order granting grandparents standing in a custody action was immediately appealable under Rule 313. Although the Court decided that the appellants/parents had satisfied the first and second prongs of the collateral order doctrine, the Court concluded that parents "have failed to satisfy the irreparability prong of the collateral order doctrine." Id. at *3. The Court explained: "Simply put, there is nothing about the present case that would make the trial court's Standing Order unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment in the underlying custody proceedings." Id.[4] Instantly, we conclude that J.C.D. is dispositive of this appeal. Pursuant to the Court's holding in that case, Mother's current appeal challenging the trial court's order granting Paternal Grandmother's petition seeking standing to intervene in the underlying custody action fails the third prong of the collateral order doctrine.[5] See J.C.D., supra. Mother may challenge the trial court's order granting Paternal Grandmother standing at the conclusion of the custody trial and upon a final custody order. See id. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.[6] Accordingly, we quash.
Appeal quashed.
---------
[*]Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
[1] Although this appeal involves a custody action, we will use the parties' names in the caption "as they appeared on the record of the trial court at the time the appeal was taken." Pa.R.A.P 904(b)(1). Notably, "upon application of a party and for cause shown, an appellate court may exercise its discretion to use the initials of the parties in the caption based upon the sensitive nature of the facts included in the case record and the best interest of the child." Pa.R.A.P. 904(b)(2); see also Pa.R.A.P. 907(a). Neither party has applied to this Court for the use of initials in the caption. Nevertheless, we will refer to the minor child as "Child" to protect Child's identity.
[2] Mother filed a separate notice of appeal docketed at No. 889 MDA 2023, challenging the court's temporary custody order awarding Paternal Grandmother partial physical custody, which this Court quashed on August 10, 2023 as interlocutory. Mother also filed an application seeking consolidation of the current appeal and the appeal at docket No. 889 MDA 2023. Based on this Court's quashal order, this Court dismissed the application seeking consolidation as moot. In the current appeal, Mother raises one issue purporting to challenge the court's temporary custody order. As this Court already quashed Mother's separate appeal from that order, we will not give Mother's issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial