Cooley & Handy won an appeal today that followed the dismissal of a frivolous “abuse of process” lawsuit filed against…
Pennsylvania Abuse of Process Lawsuit Arising out of Contentious Custody Litigation Dismissed
December 31, 2008 – Cooley & Handy recently secured the dismissal of a frivolous “abuse of process” lawsuit filed against one of its clients.
The abuse of process lawsuit arouse out of contentious and on-going custody litigation pending in Bucks County. Cooley & Handy also represented the mother in the custody litigation. In the underlying custody litigation, Cooley & Handy was able to secure the mother a series of victories. These included court orders and agreements in which mother was awarded additional custody time with her children. At every stage of the custody litigation, father vigorously opposed mother’s attempts to secure additional custody time.
Apparently frustrated by mother’s and Cooley & Handy’s success in the custody litigation, father resorted to filing a frivolous civil lawsuit against Mother.
He claimed that mother had abused the custody litigation process by forcing him to make what he viewed as “unwarranted custody concession.”
Honorable Theodore Fritch, Jr. issued a memorandum opinion issued on December 31, 2008 in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. The Court granted mother’s preliminary objections to father’s civil complaint, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. Accepting Cooley & Handy’s arguments, the court found that father could not state a claim for abuse of process based on the custody petitions that mother had filed. This is particularly true where mother was successful on her petitions and had obtained additional time with her children.
Further, in his well-reasoned decision, Judge Fritch found that it would be extremely unlikely that a litigant could ever state at claim for abuse of process based on a parent’s attempt to obtain custody of his or her child. According to the court, “to do so would discourage parents from making attempts to communicate or reconcile with their children, a result [the courts] will not support.” Permitting such claims to proceed would be “contrary to public policy.”
As a result of Cooley & Handy’s efforts, parents can continue to feel secure in their right to seek custody of their children without the threat of collateral litigation aimed at exhausting their emotional and financial wherewithal.