J-A27017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 LEONARD J. GITTER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ELENA BELOGOLOVSKY : : Appellant : No. 940 MDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered June 16, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Civil Division at No(s): 17-0702

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED: FEBRUARY 21, 2024 Elena Belogolovsky (Mother) appeals, pro se, from the June 16, 2023 order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, denying Mother’s petition for civil contempt filed against Leonard J. Gitter (Father), denying as moot Mother’s petition for enforcement of a custody order, granting Father’s new matter in response to Mother’s petition for enforcement of custody order and directing Mother to pay counsel fees, and granting in part and denying in part Father’s petition for special relief regarding international travel. The court included, as part of its order, findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Order with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 6/16/23. After our review, we rely upon the opinion authored by the

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A27017-23

Honorable Lori R. Hackenberg to affirm the court’s order. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/23.

The parties are former spouses. Their marriage lasted less than one year, and they separated when their child, A.G. (Child) (born June 2017), was five months old. This custody and support litigation began in late 2017.1 ____________________________________________

1 Mother’s appeal from the trial court’s January 3, 2023, support order is pending before this Court. See Belogolovsky v. Gitter, 156 MDA 2022.

Mother also appealed from the August 11, 2022, custody order, that granted the parties shared legal custody and granted Father primary physical custody.

See Order, 8/21/22. On appeal, this Court remanded to the trial court to supplement its best interest analysis with consideration of the section 5337(h) relocation factors. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). We also stated that “[w]ithin thirty (30) days of the date the record is remitted, the trial court shall enter a new custody order; the trial court shall delineate its reasons for the award in accordance with [s]ection 5323(d).” L.J.G. v. E.B., 1261 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed June 16, 2023) (unpublished memorandum decision), at *9.

Additionally, we ordered that the August 11, 2022 custody order remain in effect as a temporary order. Id. Mother filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was denied, see L.J.G. v. E.B., 303 A.3d 704 (Pa. 2023) (Table), and she also filed an appeal in this Court seeking recusal of the trial judge, which, by judgment order, this Court quashed. See Gitter v. Belogolovsky, 304 A.3d 761 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Table) (stating: “This case having been remanded to the trial court by way of this Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2023, and there being no merit to the argument that the trial court should recuse, this appeal is hereby quashed so that the matter may return to the trial court for a determination in accordance with the June 16, 2023 remand with instructions.”). Mother sought reconsideration, which was denied on October 2, 2023. On November 29, 2023, President Judge Hackenberg complied with this Court’s remand order, filed a supplemental opinion, and reinstated the August 11, 2022 custody order as a final order. Mother did not appeal this order.

Mother has also appealed from the trial court’s order requiring Father’s support payments be held in escrow pending resolution of the custody and support appeals. That appeal was disposed of by this Court. See (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2- J-A27017-23

Briefly, the parties have been attempting to co-parent Child (now age 6), while navigating this protracted litigation. Father resides in Lakeland, Florida; Mother resides in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to President Judge Hackenberg’s August 11, 2022 order, the parties share legal custody of Child. The order also provides that Father has primary physical custody of Child, and Mother has partial custody of Child. Mother’s custodial periods are either in Pennsylvania, in which case Father pays for Child’s travel, or in Florida, at Mother’s option and expense. See Order, 8/11/22, at ¶¶ 4-8.

While the support and custody matters were pending on appeal, both parties filed petitions for special relief. President Judge Hackenberg held a hearing on May 16, 2023, at which both parties testified.

On June 16, 2023, the court entered an order, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and disposed of the parties’ motions. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. She raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in denying Mother’s petition for civil contempt?

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in granting Father’s new matter and ordering Mother to pay Father’s counsel fees?

____________________________________________

Belogolovsky v. Gitter, 547 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 21, 2024) (unpublished memorandum decision).

-3- J-A27017-23

3. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in holding the April 12, 2022 order in effect, when the parties’ circumstances have changed and where the subsequent August 11, 2022 order partially contradicts the April 12, 2022 order?

4. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in denying Mother permission to take Child, who will be in Mother’s custody for 6 weeks during summer, to visit his family in Israel for no more than 12 days, displaying antisemitism and anti-Israel bias?

5. Did the trial court commit and error of law and an abuse of discretion in denying Mother’s petition for special relief (enforcement of custody order and emergency hearing) filed on March 20, 2023 as moot, while not conducting the hearing regarding Mother’s petition on time and failing to consider Child’s best interests and Mother’s request for make-up days?

6. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in transferring the Child’s passport to Father?

7. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in denying Mother’s motion to recuse President Judge Hackenberg and transfer venue?2 8. Did the trial court commit an error of law and an abuse of discretion in denying Mother’s motion for remote attendance of Court Watchers?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3-4 (reworded for brevity).

____________________________________________

2 Mother’s call for President Judge Hackenberg’s recusal and transfer of venue has been recycled at every turn, including for a third time on appeal before this Court. We note that Mother has made various accusations of bias and prejudice against not only President Judge Hackenberg, but also against Judge Michael Hudock, who formerly presided over the custody matter, against the court-appointed parenting coordinator and former judge, Lori Seratelli, and against the court-appointed custody evaluator. Accusations of bias or antisemitism, without any basis, are inappropriate and dangerous, and we remind Mother that a ruling against her is not evidence of either.

-4- J-A27017-23

After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s determination. Consequently, we find no merit to Mother’s contentions. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Mother’s claims on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/23, at 5-12.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order and direct the parties to include a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/21/2024

-5- Circulated 01/29/2024 03:21 PM