J-A10006-26 2026 PA Super 192
JOSEPH HENDERSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JULIA KARDOSH :
:
: No. 2065 EDA 2025
v. :
:
:
MARY ELLEN KARDOSH AND WILLIAM :
KARDOSH :
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No: 2020-05201-CU
BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Appellants, Mary Ellen and William Kardosh (“Maternal Grandparents”),
appeal from the final custody order entered on July 3, 2025, by the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County.1 Upon review, we vacate the July 3, 2025,
order and remand for imposition of the February 28, 2025, order as a final
order.
This case has a very lengthy and litigious history. On August 10, 2020,
Joseph Henderson (Father) filed a petition for emergency relief and complaint
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 This is one of four appeals taken from the July 3, 2025, order.
See 1874
EDA 2024 (Father’s appeal), 2012 and 2013 EDA 2025 (Mother’s appeals). J-A10006-26
for custody, wherein he sought custody of the parties two minor children, S.H.
(DOB: 6/2016) and V.H. (DOB: 11/2018), due to the alleged substance abuse
and mental instability of Julia Kardosh (Mother). Mother responded and
averred that she left Father and moved to Maternal Grandparents’ home to
protect herself and the children from ongoing harm. Following a hearing on
September 11, 2020, the trial court entered a temporary custody order
awarding the parties shared legal custody. See Order, 9/14/20.2 Mother was
awarded primary physical custody and Father partial physical custody. Id.
However, Father was not permitted to exercise his custodial periods at his
residence until he completed a home assessment. 3 Id. Additionally, due to
allegations of substance abuse and mental instability, the court ordered both
parents to undergo a psychological screening by Bruce E. Mapes, Ph.D. to
assess their mental fitness to safely parent the children. 4 Id.
On October 20, 2020, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition to
intervene, citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5324 (standing for any form of custody) and
5325 (standing for partial or supervised custody). Father objected and Mother
consented to the intervention. Following a hearing on December 10, 2020,
2 Pursuant to the rules of procedure, the date of the orders referenced in this
opinion reflect the date in which the order was docketed. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b).
3 The home assessment was completed, and the report was filed on October
27, 2020.
4 The psychological screenings were completed, and the reports were filed on
November 5, 2020.
-2-J-A10006-26
the court granted Maternal Grandparents intervenor standing under Section
5325. See N.T. Hearing, 12/10/20, at 19. The court noted that “while I’m
granting it under 5325, it doesn’t mean that [Maternal Grandparents] might
not have it under 5324 now or going forward.” Id. at 19. After a conciliation
conference on January 14, 2021, an interim order was entered awarding
Mother, Father and Maternal Grandparents shared legal custody; Mother and
Maternal Grandparents primary physical custody; and Father partial physical
custody every other weekend and every Thursday. See Custody Order,
1/27/21.
On June 28, 2021, the scheduled date for the custody hearing, the
parties reached a custody agreement that kept the legal and physical custody
provisions of the interim order and included a provision that the parties agreed
to engage in family counseling with Kelly Hockenberry, Esquire, who was
directed to prepare a report for the review hearing. 5 See Custody Order,
6/28/21. The order was entered as a final custody order that superseded all
prior orders. Id. at 6. No appeal was taken.
Following a full-day review hearing, the court entered an order on
October 1, 2021, which clarified and allocated periods of physical custody and
parental responsibilities between Mother and Maternal Grandparents while
they resided in the same home. See Order, 10/1/21. All other aspects of the
June 28, 2021, order remained in effect. See id. at 3. No appeal was taken.
5 All parties were represented by counsel and signed the custodial agreement.
-3-J-A10006-26
On August 21, 2023, Mother filed a petition for emergency custody
asserting that Maternal Grandparents took the children to New Jersey during
Mother’s custodial time, failed to provide an address of where they were
staying and did not allow Mother to speak with the children. On August 29,
2023, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition to modify custody and an
emergency petition for special relief and requested temporary suspension of
the parents’ custodial rights pending hair follicle testing. 6 They alleged that
Mother and Father were increasingly hostile toward Maternal Grandparents
and failed to abide by the terms of the custody order. They also alleged that
they discovered what they believed were drugs and drug paraphernalia in
Mother’s bedroom and within reach of the children.
Following a conciliation conference on September 23, 2023, the
conciliator recommended awarding Maternal Grandparents sole legal and
physical custody of the children with Mother and Father having periods of
supervised visitation. Because the change of custody was not agreed upon,
Mother and Father filed their objections and requested a trial.
Thereafter, Mother and Father filed a variety of motions and petitions
challenging Maternal Grandparents’ standing and involvement in the custody
6 Their petition to modify included notice to Mother and Father that they “have
been sued in court to obtain custody of the child[ren.]” Notice and Order to Appear, 8/29/23. Revised petitions were filed on August 30, 2023, that included additional factual information, but did not change the requested relief. The revised petition to modify included the same notice to Mother and Father that they “have been sued in court to obtain custody of the child[ren.]” Notice and Order to Appear, 9/12/23.
-4-J-A10006-26
action. Several hearings addressing the parties’ filings were held by at least
three different judges until the Honorable Deborah S. Ryan was assigned to
the case. There were also several petitions for protection from abuse (“PFA”)
filed by Mother against Father, Mother against Maternal Grandparents, Father
against Maternal Grandparents7, and Maternal Grandparents against Mother 8.
We highlight the major hearings and changes to custody.
On October 5, 2023, a hearing on the recommended change in custody
and Maternal Grandparents’ emergency petition was held before the
Honorable Louis Mincarelli. Due to allegations made against Mother and
Father, coupled with their behavior in the courtroom, Judge Mincarelli ordered
Mother and Father to undergo immediate drug testing. The instant test
indicated that Mother was positive for methamphetamines and Father was
positive for amphetamines. Father indicated that he was prescribed Adderall,
but did not provide the court with a copy of his prescription. Thereafter, the
court entered an order awarding Maternal Grandparents sole legal and
physical custody of the children. See Order, 10/5/23. If Mother continued to
reside with Maternal Grandparents, she was to be supervised on an agreed ____________________________________________
7 On October 2, 2023, Father obtained a temporary PFA order which included
the children as protected parties. As a result, the children were removed from Maternal Grandparents’ home by police at 11:00 p.m.
8 On October 6, 2023, Maternal Grandparents obtained a temporary PFA, and
later a six-month final PFA, against Mother. The PFA evicted Mother from Maternal Grandparents home and she moved in with her paramour, John Canal, in New Jersey. It did not supersede the custody order except that Mother’s visits would be supervised by Child and Adolescence Counseling Services of Southeastern Pennsylvania
-5-J-A10006-26
upon schedule. Id. If Mother moved out, then her visits would occur at
Maternal Grandparents home every Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
under their supervision. Id. Father was to be supervised by Child First Family
Services every other Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., or any other
three-hour block of time available to the agency. Id. Mother and Father were
both ordered to engage in and follow through with mental health and drug
and alcohol treatment programs, and to provide documentation of such. Id.
On December 12, 2023, Mother filed a notice of proposed relocation to
Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Maternal Grandparents filed a counter-affidavit
objecting to the proposed relocation. The custody hearing was scheduled
before the Honorable Analisa Sondergaard for June 2024, with a pretrial
conference scheduled for April 2024.
Prior to then, a hearing on Mother’s petition for special relief was held
on April 8, 2024, before the Honorable Alita Rovito. Judge Rovito dismissed
Mother’s petition and entered an interim order which amended the October 5,
2023, order and the most recent PFA order only in the following manner: Child
First Family Services would now supervise Mother’s visits every Saturday for
four hours at a location designated by Child First. 9 See Order, 4/9/24. Father
agreed to move his supervised visits to Sunday. Id.
9 The order also stated that (1) the contempt issues would be addressed in
the scheduled contempt hearing; (2) the PFA issues would be addressed in a hearing on Maternal Grandparents’ request to extend the PFA; and (3) the custody issues would be addressed during the scheduled custody trial.
-6-J-A10006-26
On May 7, 2024, Judge Sondergaard granted Father’s request for
recusal; therefore, the custody hearing was rescheduled to November 2024
before Judge Ryan.
A hearing was held on August 9, 2024, which addressed: (1) Mother’s
emergency motion for contempt filed March 25, 2024; (2) Mother’s motion to
modify interlocutory order for alternative paid supervision service filed June
10, 2024, emergency motion to modify interlocutory order/request for change
in supervision filed June 18, 2024, and petition for special relief filed July 16,
2024, all of which requested a change in the terms of the custody order; (3)
Maternal Grandparents petition for counsel fees against Mother; and (4) John
Canal’s petition to intervene. The court took the matters under advisement
at the end of the hearing.
On August 28, 2024, the court issued multiple orders. First, a temporary
custody order wherein Mother was awarded four hours of supervised custody
on Sundays if it occurred in New Jersey, and six hours if it was in Pennsylvania.
The court also ordered (1) Mother to complete drug and alcohol and
psychological evaluations with Dr. V. Richard Roeder; (2) the parties to
attempt to agree on a non-professional supervisor for Mother’s time and
provided recourse if no agreement was reached; and (3) an in-home visit and
evaluation of John Canal’s residence. The order further provided that if all
conditions were met, it would approve John Canal as a non-professional
supervisor and Mother would be able to exercise her custodial time in New
Jersey.
-7-J-A10006-26
Second, an award of partial counsel fees ($3,571.87) to be paid by
Mother to Maternal Grandparents. Third, an order denying Mother’s petition
for contempt, but providing Mother five “make-up” visits with the children.
Fourth, an order denying John Canal’s petition to intervene.
On September 5, 2024, Mother filed an appeal from each order, as well
as a request for reconsideration.10 Said request was denied. Due to Mother’s
appeals to this Court, the custody trial was rescheduled to January 2025.
The in-home evaluation of John Canal’s residence was submitted to the
court on October 15, 2024. On October 21, 2024, after a colloquy, the court
entered an amended interim order appointing John Canal as supervisor of
Mother’s custodial time with visits to occur every Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. in a public setting in Pennsylvania. See Orders, 10/21/24 &
11/22/24. The order also directed Mother to comply with the previous order
for drug and alcohol and psychological evaluations. Id.
A six-day custody hearing was held from January 27, 2025, through
February 3, 2025. Father and Maternal Grandparents were represented by
counsel, and Mother was pro se. At the outset of the hearing, the court noted
that it would not revisit the 2020 order granting Maternal Grandparents’
standing. N.T. Custody Hearing, 1/27/25, at 6. However, it would assess
whether they continued to have standing at that time. Id. The court then
asked each party what relief they were requesting. Mother sought primary ____________________________________________
10 Mother’s appeals were ultimately quashed or dismissed. See 2486-2489 EDA 2024.
-8-J-A10006-26
physical custody with Father having partial physical custody, and the Maternal
Grandparents removed from the case. Id. at 10. Father likewise sought
primary physical custody with Mother having partial physical custody, and the
Maternal Grandparents removed. Id. at 22. Maternal Grandparents
requested that sole legal and physical custody remain with them, subject to
supervised visits with the parents. Id. at 27.
The court heard testimony from the following witnesses: Mother, Father,
Maternal Grandmother, Maternal Grandfather, Brooker Berger (Mother’s
friend), Chris Pawlowski (probation officer), Kim Melhorn (owner of Child
First), Angela Gornish (supervisor of Father’s visits), Tracey Azzolini (Father’s
friend), John Canal, Dr. Blumenthal (medical review officer), and Carol
Gamber (Paternal Grandmother).
On February 28, 2025, the court entered an interim custody order and
order directing expert examination and report, as well as an extensive opinion
analyzing both the custody and relocation factors. See Interim Order and
Opinion, 2/28/25. The court awarded Maternal Grandparents with sole legal
and primary physical custody of the children. Father was required to complete
a home evaluation prior to resuming supervised visits in his home. Mother
was awarded supervised visitation every Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. with John Canal as her supervisor. If Mother completed her court-9-J-A10006-26
ordered evaluations, the court would expand Mother’s custodial time. 11
Additionally, the court explicitly denied Mother’s request to relocate the
children to New Jersey.
The order also prohibited the parties from filing frivolous, nonemergency petitions. Despite this prohibition, Mother and Father filed
numerous pleadings titled “emergency” requesting the court to certify the
February 28, 2025, interim custody order as an appealable interlocutory order.
The requests were denied.12 Mother also filed several “emergency” pleadings
requesting funds to complete her court-ordered evaluations.
Mother was evaluated by Dr. Roeder on June 10, 2025, and a report was
issued on June 19, 2025. A review hearing was held on June 23, 2025, the
focus of which was the parties’ compliance with the February 28, 2025, order.
The order scheduling the review hearing did not set forth the parameters of
the hearing or provide notice that the court would reconsider Mother’s request
to relocate. The court heard testimony from: Dr. Roeder, Mother, Father, and
Maternal Grandmother.
On July 3, 2025, the court entered a final custody order and an extensive
opinion analyzing both the custody and relocation factors. See Final Custody ____________________________________________
11 The order provided Mother with an opportunity to choose her own provider
to complete the drug and alcohol and mental health evaluations. If, however, the provider was not approved by the court, then she was required to complete the evaluations with Dr. Roeder as originally ordered in August 2024.
12 Despite the court’s order denying her request for an interlocutory appeal,
Mother filed four notices of appeal of the February 28, 2025, order, which were dismissed or quashed. See 886-889 EDA 2025.
- 10 -J-A10006-26
Order and Opinion, 7/3/25. The final order modified the interim order
changing primary custody to Mother on a gradual basis. Mother and Maternal
Grandparents would share legal custody until Mother assumed primary
physical custody, then Mother would have sole legal custody. Mother’s
supervision requirements were removed, and the court imposed a schedule
gradually increasing Mother’s custodial time until she assumed primary
physical custody on August 4, 2025. Once Mother assumed primary physical
custody, Maternal Grandparents were awarded partial physical custody every
other weekend. Father’s supervised visits were dependent on his completion
of a home evaluation, as well as the previously ordered mental health and
drug and alcohol evaluations.13 By changing primary custody to Mother, who
resides in New Jersey, the court implicitly granted a relocation.
Maternal Grandparents filed a motion for reconsideration and stay of the
order pending appeal, as well as a petition for special relief. The motions were
denied. This timely appeal followed. Maternal Grandparents raise the
following issues for our review:
1. The trial court’s order modifying all aspects of custody without
notice is a violation of the parties’ due process rights as no
modification petition was pending and school change and
relocation had already been denied.
2. It was an abuse of discretion and not in the best interest of the
children to sua sponte grant a change of schools, as well as
uproot all stability in their family and community lives.
13Between the six-day custody hearing and review hearing Father sold his home. As of June 2025, Father resided in Philadelphia with his brother and had not provided his address to Mother or Maternal Grandparents.
- 11 -J-A10006-26
3. The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered a change
in legal and primary physical custody because the children (and
mother) will lose their health insurance and social security
benefits.
4. It is an abuse of discretion to rely on the stated preference of
a six and nine year old child is not outweighed by their
developmental stage, maturity levels and judgment.
5. The psychological assessment is not an accurate tool for
determining safety for mother to parent, and does not address
her psychiatric concerns.
Appellants’ Brief, at 9.
Our analysis is focused on the first issue as it is dispositive of this appeal.
We take no position on the remaining issues.
Maternal Grandparents argue that the July 3, 2025, order implicitly
granting Mother’s request to relocate was a violation of their due process
rights because they were not provided notice that the issue of relocation would
be addressed during the review hearing. “A question regarding whether a due
process violation occurred is a question of law for which the standard of review
is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” S.T. v. R.W., 192 A.3d 1155,
1160 (Pa. Super. 2018). It is well settled that “procedural due process
requires, at its core, adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and the chance
to defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over
the case.” S.T., 192 A.3d at 1161.
A parent seeking to relocate a child’s residence must provide notice to
“every other individual who has custody rights to the child.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5337(c). If a party objects to the relocation, the court must hold a hearing
- 12 -J-A10006-26
and consider whether relocation is warranted after considering the statutory
relocation factors, given “weighted consideration to those factors which affect
the safety of the child.” Id., § 5337(g), (h).
Mother filed her notice of proposed relocation on December 12, 2023.
Maternal Grandparents filed their objection. The issue of relocation was
addressed during the six-day custody trial in early 2025. Mother presented
evidence of where she lived, as well as the school district the children would
attend if relocation to New Jersey was granted. After the close of trial, the
court issued a comprehensive opinion addressing the relocation factors (as
well as the custody factors) and an order denying Mother’s request to relocate.
Within the order, the court included a provision to schedule a review
hearing:
A review hearing shall be scheduled in this matter by Family Court
Administration no earlier than ninety (90) days following entry of
this Interim Custody Order on the docket and in accordance with
the court’s availability. The review hearing may include
consideration by the court of an increase in Mother and
Father’s custodial time, subject to their compliance with
and the results of the evaluations required herein.
Interim Custody Order, 2/28/25, ¶ 12 (emphasis added). After the denial of
Mother’s request to relocate, she did not file another notice of proposed
relocation. Moreover, the letter scheduling the review hearing did not provide
notice that the court was going to reconsider its denial of Mother’s request to
relocate. It merely stated: “Please be advised the above-captioned matter
has been scheduled for hearing on Monday, June 23, 2025 at 9:30 am in
- 13 -J-A10006-26
Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Deborah S. Ryan.” Family Court Letter,
3/13/25. Thus, neither Mother nor the court provided Maternal Grandparents
with notice that relocation would be considered during the review hearing, a
violation of their due process rights.
Because the July 3, 2025, order provides Mother with primary physical
custody, and Mother resides in New Jersey, the court implicitly granted Mother
permission to relocate. Since there was no notice of proposed relocation
pending, and the provision in the February 27, 2025, order regarding the
review hearing did not mention that relocation was still at issue, we conclude
that the court abused its discretion. As such, we vacate the July 3, 2025,
order, and remand for imposition of the February 28, 2025, order as a final
order.
July 3, 2025, custody order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Date: 9/1/2026
- 14 -