NON-PRECEDENTI AL DECISION
Appeal from the Order entered May 13, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Civil Division, at No(s): 1189 of 2010-D.
BEFORE: PANELLA, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER [*] , JJ.
L.C., (Mother), appeals the final order entered on May 13, 2013, granting visitation and partial custody to D.R., (Paternal Grandmother), and the prior order entered on March 13, 2012, which denied her petition to schedule a hearing on the m atter of the court's right to entertain initial jurisdiction and ongoing jurisdiction with respect to Paternal Grandmother's standing to assert grandparental custody rights in the custody proceeding between Mother and A.P.G., (Father). We vacate and remand.
Mother and Father are the parents of H.G., born in August 2007, and G.G., born in September 2009, and married on January 5, 2008. Mother filed a com plaint for divorce on August 2, 2010, which was finalized on December 12, 2010. Father filed for custody of the Children on June 21, 2010, and was awarded partial custody by order of court dated September 2, 2010. On November 9, 2010, Paternal Grandmother presented a petition requesting perm ission to intervene. The petition also requested periods of partial custody for Paternal Grandm other. The trial court, in an order dated November 9, 2010, permitted Paternal Grandmother to intervene in the custody case. Paternal Grandmother participated in the review conference scheduled for November 16, 2010. Following the conference, the trial court, by order of court dated November 29, 2010, awarded Paternal Grandmother partial custody of the Children every Sunday from 2: 00 p.m. until 4: 00 p.m.
In an order dated on March 25, 2011, Paternal Grandmother's visits were switched to supervised visits, to be supervised by Counseling and Assessment Services (CCAS) and paid for by Paternal Grandmother. Also at Paternal Grandmother's expense, CCAS was ordered to conduct a home evaluation at Paternal Grandmother's residence.
After a review on September 9, 2011, based on the report and recommendations of Nicole Lavale, M.A., of CCAS, the supervisor of the visits between Paternal Grandm other and the Children, the trial court ordered that the visits were to be m onitored, with the visits being unsupervised. Paternal Grandmother was to pay the costs of the m onitoring.
On January 13, 2012, the Mother's current counsel entered her appearance. Shortly thereafter, a flurry of petitions were filed, m ost raising allegations against Paternal Grandm other, requesting that Paternal Grandmother's rights be suspended or switched back to supervised.
On February 14, 2012, Mother filed a Motion to Schedule Hearing to Determine Initial and Ongoing Custody Jurisdiction, Venue and Standing Pursuant to Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure 1915.5 and 23 Pa.C.S.A., Sections 5313(A) and 5422. The trial court denied Mother's request in an order dated March 9, 2012, and entered on March 13, 2012. Mother filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 9, 2012 order, which the trial court denied on March 29, 2012, after hearing arguments.
Thereafter, in April 2012, Mother filed a Petition to Term inate Grandparent Partial Custody/ Visitation. After hearing argum ents on the petition, the trial court denied the petition on April 26, 2012. On April 26, 2012, the trial court scheduled the trial to occur on August 31, 2012. On August 31, 2012, Father and Paternal Grandmother consented to the relocation of Mother and the Children from Westmoreland County to Fayette County, and the trial court entered a consent order. On April 29-30, 2013, a trial proceeded on the other issues. In an order dated May 7, 2013, and entered on May 13, 2013, the trial court issued an order awarding partial custody of the Children to Paternal Grandmother every Sunday, with the visits to be from 2: 00 p.m. to 4: 00 p.m., beginning May 19, 2013.
On May 21, 2013, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1025(a)(2)(i) and (b).
I n her brief, Mother divides her issues into two parts:
I . [ Whether] [ t] he Lower Court erred, by reason of its Order of Court dated March 9, 2012, in refusing to schedule a hearing and consider the issues of initial jurisdiction and ongoing jurisdiction with respect to whether the intervenor ...