Monday Briefing 2026 Vol. 1 - 1/12/26

Get your Monday briefing of last week’s notable family law Supreme and Superior court decisions, as well as a list of other non-family law precedential opinions.

Child Support

Courson v. Rekasie, No. 246 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. January 8, 2026) - J. Ford Elliott

Type: Child Support/Voluntary Reduction in Income

Summary: Father files this appeal from of the divorce hearing officer (DHO) Report and Recommendations dated August 20, 2024 overruling his exceptions. In his appeal he argued, among other things, that his earning capacity was incorrectly imputed at using his previous salary of $350,000 and that Mother’s income was incorrectly calculated. Father argues that the trial court should have looked to Mother’s 2024 target salary instead of her prior year’s salary which reflected where she changed positions for four months. Father also argues that his change in employment after a corporate restructuring, was not an attempt to reduce his income for child support purposes and that the trial court failed to follow the two-prong test provided in Ewing. The DHO determined that while Father’s reduction in income was not undertaken to avoid a support obligation, it was nevertheless a voluntary reduction that resulted in an income calculation consistent with Rule 1910.16- 2(d)(1). The trial court found that Father’s arguments that he took steps to mitigate the difference in income by reducing this families expenses was inconsistent with $38K and $12K trips he took after the change in income. The trial court was satisfied with the detailed analysis that the DHO provided. This Court affirms.

Jean v. Morgan, No. 704 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. January 6, 2026) - J. Olson

Type: Child Support / Stipulated Order
Summary: Father appealed from contempt of child support orders. Father argued that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a meaningful ability-to-pay hearing and make findings on his present financial resources, 2) a bench warrant haring was converted into a contempt proceeding without prior notice and also denied Father’s ability to be heard by silencing his objects, and 3) that Father’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were denied because he was held for eight days instead of seven days, and 4) whether the trial court’s order resulted in unconstitutional conditions when he was denied access to prescribed medications during his incarceration. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and adopted the trial court’s opinion as its own.

Did the trial court violate [Father’s] due process [rights] by incarcerating [Father] for civil contempt without first conducting a meaningful ability-to-pay hearing and making findings on his present financial resources? 2. Did the trial court err by converting a bench warrant hearing into a contempt proceeding without prior notice and by silencing [Father’s] objections, thereby denying him the opportunity to be heard? 3. Was [Father’s] confinement unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment where he was held for eight days despite the trial court’s imposition of a seven-day sentence? 4. Did the trial court’s order result in unconstitutional conditions of confinement when [Father] was denied access to prescribed medications during incarceration?

Custody

N.E.G. v J.Z.M. Appeal of Richard Ducote, No. 1613 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. January 5, 2026) - J. Sullivan

Type: Custody / Contempt (Attorney Sanction)
Summary: The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of direct criminal contempt against Mother’s attorney during custody proceedings. Appellant, appearing pro se, repeatedly attempted to introduce or reference precluded evidence (photographs) and objected to the trial court’s rulings despite clear admonitions. The court declined to decide interlocutory recusal motions and held that sufficient evidence supported the contempt finding under 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132(3) — misconduct in the presence of the court that disrupted proceedings. The Court emphasized deference to the trial court’s discretion and that the contempt was established by the attorney’s intentional refusal to comply with court directives during trial.

N.E.G. v. J.Z.M. Appeal of Richard Ducote, N.E.G. v. J.Z.M., No. 1886 EDA 2024 and No.2078 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. January 5, 2026) - J. Sullivan

Type: Custody / Contempt
Summary: In this companion appeal to the above case arising from the ongoing N.E.G. v. J.Z.M. custody dispute, the Superior Court addressed serial contempt hearings and trial court enforcement actions (including “gag orders” and preclusion of photographs). The trial court found Mother and her counsel in contempt for violations of discovery and pretrial orders and entered restrictive orders. Although the full text is long, the Court’s memorandum demonstrates repeated enforcement of trial court orders where the parties violated express directives (such as failing to present materials in camera and publicly disseminating case information).

Sposato v Sposato, No. 1573 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. January 5, 2026) - J. Ford Elliott

Type: Contempt of Custody/Attorney’s Fees for Frivolous and Vexatious Appeal

Summary: Mother appeals a contempt of custody order from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. Issues 2-4 of the issues that Mother raised in her brief were not provided for in her 1925(a)(2)(1) concise statement of errors and were therefore waived. The issue that remains is one of jurisdiction. As the court observes that “issues of jurisdiction may be addressed by this Court sua sponte, and at any time, including for the first time on appeal, because challenges to the court’s jurisdiction are nonwaivable.” See In re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 668 (Pa. Super. 2019). Mother specifically argued whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition while an appeal was pending and whether a clause ordering a 90-day no contact with maternal grandmother was appropriate. The Court reminded Mother that the trial court does have the authority to enter orders concerning the status quo. It found that the 90-day no contact order furthered the non-disparagement clause in the custody order and as such, furthered the status quo. The Court remands the case for attorney’s fees stating that “in the end, after independent review, we have found that Mother’s appeal was—beyond being merely meritless—wholly frivolous and lacks any basis in law and fact, is a vexatious delay tactic, and an abuse of the appellate process, which we cannot condone or disregard.”

The Court affirmed and remanded to determine appropriate appellate attorney’s fees to be paid by Mother because Mother has filed a frivolous and vexatious appeal.

Baker v. Baker, No. 1130 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. January 6, 2026) - J. Dubow

Type: Custody / Stipulated Order
Summary: Father appealed from contempt and a stipulated custody order that followed. The Court found that the stipulated custody order superseded the contempt order that was filed the day before the stipulated order and that Father’s challenges to the contempt determination were therefore moot. Because the parties agreed to the custody order and it was voluntary, the Court held it is unappealable — a party who acquiesces cannot later challenge it on appeal.

Oswald v. Oswald, No. 601 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. January 8, 2026) - J. Ford Elliott

Type: Custody Modification
Summary: Mother appealed a custody order modifying physical custody, increasing Father’s time with two of their three children and reducing her time to every other weekend. The physical custody of the third, and oldest child, remained shared. Mother argued, among other issues, that the trial court in appropriately took into consideration her religion. The Court found that the trial court did not question Mother about her religion, but instead offered her an opportunity to explain an event that the children raised concerns about. Mother declined. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s custody modification as within its discretion. The opinion emphasizes that custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and deferred heavily to the trial court’s findings regarding best-interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328). The record showed a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.

Mills v. Yeager v. Peters, No. 1046 MDA 2025, Mills v. Yeager v. Peters, No. 1169 MDA 2025 - (Pa. Super. January 8, 2026) - Non-precedential opinion

In these consolidated cases, Father appeals from the orders entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on June 30, 2025 and July 23, 2025, granting standing to and partial physical custody to Mills (paternal grandfather) of H.T.A.M. Mother told Mills that he was biological father of H.T.A.M. and Mills was listed on the birth certificate. Mills filed for custody and was awarded partial physical custody. Mother later filed for child support from Mills. In response, Mills requested genetic testing which determined that he was not the child’s biological father, and the child support complaint was dismissed. During this period, Mother contacted Father for the first time and advised him that he was possibly the child’s biological father. Father obtained a paternity test in August of 2024 which confirmed that he was the biological father. Mother filed for child support in September of 2024 against Father. Mother then filed a petition for special relief in custody seeking to stay Mills’ physical custody. Father filed a petition to intervene. Mills then filed to have Father’s petition dismissed. The trial court granted Mills partial physical custody of the child finding that he did stand in loco parentis. The Superior Court disagreed. They found that while the trial court looked at the period prior to October 2024, this Court must look at the record as a whole. It found that Mills did not perform parental duties for the 16 months prior to the hearing, did not provide financial support of the child, and that the time that he lived with them and the 7-8 weeks of partial custody was not enough a sufficient argument against Mother and Father’s lack of consent. Mills did provide medical coverage for the child, but Mother stated the child has other medical insurance. The Court found that Mills’ actions are not enough to prove that he stands in loco parentis or that it would be in the child’s best interest to force a relationship against the wishes of the child’s biological parents. Reversed.

Other Precedents

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL

First Energy Pennsylvania Electric Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 42 MAP 2024, Cross appeal of Verizon PA, LLC and Verizon North, LLC, No. 43, MAP 2024 - filed on 1/8/2026

CRIMINAL

Comm. v. Douglas Carl Albert, No. 609 WDA 2024 - filed on 1/8/2026

Comm v. Brian Keith Devilbliss, No. 478 MDA 2025 - filed on 1/8/2026

Comm v. Bryan Robert Freeman, No. 1007 EDA 2025 , Comm. v. David Jonathan Freeman No. 1308 EDA 2024 -filed on 1/9/2026

SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL

Luis Hernandez v. Sharon Zook, No. 560 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 2026)

CRIMINAL

Comm. v. Brenton Joseph, No. 681 MDA 2025 - (Pa. Super. 2026)