J-S64014-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

S.M.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v. 

J.L.B. 

 Appellee No. 871 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order April 22, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2011 GN 945 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2014 

 S.M.W. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Blair County denying his petition for special relief in this 

custody matter. We affirm. 

 J.L.B. (“Mother”) and Father are the parents of B.K.W., born in 

September 2004, who is the subject of this custody dispute. Mother and 

Father were never married. In 2008, B.K.W. was found dependent and 

placed in foster care temporarily. Both parents have a history of drug 

abuse, which rendered them unable to parent B.K.W. at that time. There is 

also a history of domestic violence. 

On July 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreed order of custody, 

wherein Mother had primary residential custody and Father had partial 
J-S64014-14 

- 2 - 

physical custody.1 Father filed a petition to modify custody, seeking 

primary residential custody. The court held a hearing in April 2014. 

Thereafter, the court entered an order denying Father’s petition for 

modification. Father filed a timely notice of appeal, along with a Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b) (Children’s Fast Track Appeals). 

On appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review: 

1. Whether the court erred by placing too much weight on the 

past and present allegations of abuse by Father? 

2. Whether the court erred in not placing enough emphasis 

on Mother’s current issues concerning the minor child’s 

stepbrother and the child’s terrible attendance at school? 

3. Whether the court erred by taking time away from Father 

due to Mother’s belief that this would benefit the child 

without expert testimony? 

In custody modification cases, our scope and standard of review are as 

follows: 

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type 

and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept 

findings of the trial court that are supported by competent 

evidence of record, as our role does not include making 

independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to 

issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to 

the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses 

first-hand. However, we are not bound by the trial court’s 

deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Father had custody every other weekend and every Wednesday after 

school until Thursday after school, with one additional night after school until 

6:30 p.m. 
J-S64014-14 

- 3 - 

the test is whether the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable 

as shown by the evidence of record. We may reject the 

conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of law, 

or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the 

trial court. 

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). 

 Further, this Court has stated, 

[t]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters 

should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature 

of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on 

the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge 

gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody 

proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court 

by a printed record. 

Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting 

Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)). 

 Under the Child Custody Act (“Act”),2 the paramount concern is the 

best interests of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5328, 5338. Section 5338 of 

the Act provides that, upon petition, a trial court may modify a custody 

order if it serves the “best interest of the child.” See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338. 

Section 5328 lists sixteen factors the court must consider in that analysis, 

including abuse/risk factors, and requires the court to give “weighted 

consideration” to safety factors. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. In particular, 

section 5328(a)(2) states: 

____________________________________________ 

2See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321-5340. Because trial here was held in April 2014, 

the Act applies to this case. See C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 445 (holding that, if the 

custody evidentiary proceeding commences on or after the effective date of 

the Act, i.e., January 24, 2011, the provisions of the Act apply). 
J-S64014-14 

- 4 - 

The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of 

the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm 

to the child or an abused party and which party can better 

provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the 

child. 

23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2). 

 In his first issue, Father argues that the court erred in placing too 

much weight on past allegations of abuse, including a prior PFA that Mother 

had filed against him, which the court granted, as well as Mother’s testimony 

of domestic violence, threats, and an assault by Father that caused her to 

suffer a collapsed lung. Father acknowledged assault charges with respect 

to other males,3 and admitted there was a PFA against him with respect to 

Mother; however, he denied any allegations of abuse against the child. N.T. 

Custody Hearing, 4/8/14, at 6, 59-60, 83-85. Father also contends that 

since the domestic abuse was in the past, four years prior to the hearing, 

the weight the court placed on this evidence was in error. We disagree. 

 The fact that Father’s violence was aimed at Mother and others, and 

not toward B.K.W., does not render this factor any less significant, especially 

in light of the statute’s mandatory language that the court give “weighted” 

consideration to safety and risk factors. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. Further, 

the abuse factor is not limited to abuse toward the child. The statute 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Mother testified that Father came to her home and assaulted her boyfriend, 

and she stated that she is afraid of him. N.T. Custody Hearing, 4/18/14, at 

88-89. 
J-S64014-14 

- 5 - 

specifically requires that the court consider whether there is a “continued 

risk of harm to the child or an abused party.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2) 

(emphasis added).4 We find no error. 

 Father next claims the court erred in not placing enough emphasis on 

Mother’s current issues concerning the minor child’s stepbrother, age 13, 

who resides with Mother and B.K.W., as well as issues concerning both 

B.K.W.’s and stepbrother’s attendance at school. Father argues that 

B.K.W.’s absences were on days when he did not have custody and that 

stepbrother had terrible attendance at school as well, indicating Mother had 

no control over the household.5 

 Father testified that B.K.W. missed twenty-one days of school in a two 

and one-half-month period, that he was frequently late for school, and that 

although Mother claimed the absences were due to illness, Father disagreed. 

____________________________________________ 

4

 We note that Mother also testified that B.K.W. told her Father hits his 

girlfriend, and that B.K.W. “goes into his room and turns his TV up the whole 

way and jumps on the bed to try to not hear it.” N.T. Custody Hearing, 

4/08/14, at 89. Father’s girlfriend denied this, stating that if he were 

physical with her, she “would have him arrested.” Id. at 144. 

5

 Mother’s response to the question of why her other son, B.K.W.’s 

stepbrother, had poor attendance at school was “Damian chooses not to go 

to school and doesn’t want to follow my rules.” N.T. Custody Hearing, 

4/08/14, at 108. At that time, stepbrother was thirteen years old. Mother 

did state that she tries to make him go to school, but she cannot physically 

get him up and carry him. Id. at 109. She also stated that he was in the 

Truancy Protection Program to try to get back into school. Id. Mother 

clarified Father’s statement that stepbrother had broken into a vehicle; she 

stated that he and his friends had thrown a rock at a vehicle and it broke the 

window. Id. at 111. 
J-S64014-14 

- 6 - 

He testified that when he questioned B.K.W. about why he missed school, 

the child related that it was because Mother overslept. Id. at 9. Father 

stated that stepbrother “likes to beat up on his little brother,” id. at 13, and 

that Mother’s characterization of the fighting as “what brothers do” is 

misleading. Father also testified about a DUI Mother received while B.K.W. 

was in the car, that she has had drug relapses and used crack cocaine, and 

that B.K.W. tells him there are people coming in the house and sleeping on a 

mattress on the floor. Id. at 14-15. Essentially, Father claims it would be in 

B.K.W.’s best interests to grant him primary custody because he does not 

believe that B.K.W. lives in a safe environment. Id. at 17. Father stated: 

It doesn’t seem like my son is in a very safe environment. He is 

not making it to school. He is not making it to baseball practices 

at all. I make sure that he attends school every day. I make 

sure that he has a home-cooked meal in him every day. I make 

sure that he goes to baseball practice. I spend time with him. 

We do things together as a family. I just think the environment 

that I provide is a lot better for learning morals and values and 

respect and get an education and growing up and becoming 

somebody. . . . Because he didn’t make it to school for so many 

days they threw him off the [school] basketball team. . . . Also, 

they were going to put him back in regular classes, but since he 

missed so many days of school and got behind, they wouldn’t 

allow him to go back into regular classes either. I’m concerned 

about everything. I’m concerned about not going to school. I’m 

concerned, you know, that he doesn’t make it to his sports. I’m 

concerned that his [step]brother is . . . not a very good person, 

and I’m afraid [B.K.W.] is going to start copying him. 

[Stepbrother] has been caught smoking; he’s been caught with 

marijuana in his room. . . . He is breaking into cars; he’s been 

arrested and put away. . . . I’m asking the Court to let me have 

full custody so I can make sure that [B.K.W.] gets to school 

every day, that [he] gets to his sports and that [he] grows up 

with an education and learns respect and morals and values and 
J-S64014-14 

- 7 - 

can grow up and become something because the road he is on 

now, it’s bleak. 

Id. at 17-21. 

 Father points out in his brief that there was no testimony that B.K.W. 

had excessive absences from school while in his custody, nor was there any 

testimony regarding an unsafe environment or any abuse and/or neglect 

while B.K.W. was in Father’s custody. 

 Our comprehensive review of the record from the custody hearing 

indicates that there are safety risks in both households. Both parties clearly 

care for the child, and yet both parties struggle with failings that have 

adversely affected their child. Mother has admitted her history of drug use, 

in particular cocaine. Id. at 114. She also admitted that she had a relapse 

in 2011, stating that she used crack cocaine once when her children were 

with a sitter. Id. at 115. Father acknowledged his previous assaults, as 

well as prior DUIs. 

Father also acknowledged that he did not give B.K.W. his prescribed 

medication.6 Father testified that the medication had adverse effects on 

B.K.W., that it was like giving “poison” to his son and he could not do it. He 

stated, “I saw what it was doing to my child, and I can’t bring myself to give 

____________________________________________ 

6

 B.K.W. has been diagnosed with AD/HD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder) and ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder), as well as a mood 

disorder. B.K.W. was three years old when he was diagnosed and began 

treatment. N.T. Custody Hearing, 4/8/2014, at 74.
J-S64014-14 

- 8 - 

it to him because of what it does to him and the harm it is causing him. As 

a parent, I can’t do that.” Id. at 54. Mother testified that B.K.W. spends 

Wednesday evenings with Father, and Father does not give him his AD/HD 

medication on Thursday morning before school; therefore, Mother claims, 

B.K.W. invariably gets into trouble in school on Thursdays. Id. at 81. She 

testified this occurs on Mondays at school as well after B.K.W. has spent the 

weekend with his Father. Id. As a result, the trial court included in a prior

order, in April 2011, the requirement that Father cooperate with 

administering B.K.W.’s medication. Id. at 81-83. Father’s testimony, 

however, indicates that he is adamantly opposed to giving B.K.W. his 

medication. 

 Allison Seltzer, who holds a master’s degree in Clinical and Counseling 

Psychology, testified that she is B.K.W.’s therapist, that B.K.W.’s behavior 

had decompensated in the last several months, and that B.K.W. indicated to 

her that when he did not take his medication it was difficult for him to be 

calm and he does not do as well in school. Id. at 132. Seltzer stated that 

B.K.W. also indicated to her that he does not get his medication when he 

visits Father. Id. at 133. Additionally, Seltzer testified that B.K.W. 

witnessed violent behavior in the past, that she had recently diagnosed 

B.K.W. with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and that when Father 
J-S64014-14 

- 9 - 

makes derogatory statement about Mother, “the trauma continues.” Id. at 

135.7 

 Dr. Peggy Nadenichek, a licensed psychologist, also testified. She 

stated that she had been contacted by Father for the purpose of counseling 

B.K.W., beginning in April 2013. N.T. Custody Hearing, 4/11/14, at 6. Dr. 

Nadenichek stated that B.K.W.’s main complaint about living with Mother 

involved “his brother beating up on him. That’s pretty much what he didn’t 

like about his mom’s house.” Id. at 8. She stated: 

[I]t appears to be a constant. In one of my sessions, he was 

happy that two days had passed, that [his brother] had not beat 

up on him, and, you know, he was asked to keep secrets about 

cigarettes and things like that. So, he – now, it was a constant. 

It was not just every once in a while sibling problem. 

Id. Additionally, Dr. Nadenicheck reported that B.K.W. gave her various 

reasons for his absences from school: 

[H]e would say because of his headache or a stomachache and 

then he would say because his mom didn’t get him up and he 

was very concerned about missing so much school because he 

wanted to get good grades. He valued good grades and he was 

worried that he would not get good grades if he missed so much 

school. . . . [I]t was very confusing to me [with respect to 

sleeping arrangements]. He has a bed there and I think 

sometimes he was able to sleep in it; sometimes he wasn’t. 

Sometimes he stayed with his mom but if she had someone 

over, he couldn’t stay there. I believe a relative was there at 

one point and used his room. So, I really could not get a very 

clear answer from [B.K.W.] as to where he slept on a regular 

____________________________________________ 

7

 Seltzer testified: “Statements that she is on drugs, that she smokes crack; 

that . . . there are “effing N’s” under her bed.” Id. at 136. 
J-S64014-14 

- 10 - 

basis. [H]e had mentioned sleeping downstairs; I believe it was 

the couch. 

Id. at 9-10. Dr. Nadenicheck also testified as to her conversation with 

B.K.W.’s teacher and the teacher’s reported observations, which, essentially, 

were not consistent with either Mother’s testimony or that of therapist 

Seltzer: 

[His teacher] really likes [him] and just wanted to be open with 

the information she shared and she felt that she could not – 

there was no set pattern to his behavior related to medication 

taking, except she did notice that when he started up again in 

October after Dr. Cho prescribed the Concerta, he wasn’t the 

same bubbly child that he had been but she did state that 

B.K.W. has said he doesn’t always take it at his mom’s; he 

doesn’t take it always at his dad’s so she never saw any real 

pattern to his behavior consistent with knowing when or when he 

wasn’t taking his medicine. 

Id. at 11. Dr. Nadenichek acknowledged B.K.W.’s anger problems and the 

ODD diagnosis; however, she was guarded with respect to the AD/HD 

diagnosis. 

 The record contains blatant inconsistencies in each party’s 

characterizations of what occurs in the other’s household, as well as 

conflicting expert testimony. The trial court was in the unenviable position 

of having to sort through these discrepancies, and this Court must defer to 

the determinations of the trial court as to the credibility and weight it gave 

to each party’s testimony. See C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 443. Therefore, Father’s 

claim that the court placed too little weight on the sibling situation is 

insufficient, in itself, to find error or an abuse of discretion. 
J-S64014-14 

- 11 - 

 In his final issue, Father argues the court erred in awarding Mother 

primary custody during the school week, thereby taking time away from 

Father’s custody, without expert testimony. He argues the court relied only 

on Mother’s testimony that this would benefit B.K.W. He also argues that 

Mother’s household is not conducive to better attendance at school, that 

stepbrother is a bad influence on B.K.W., and that stepbrother’s actions 

toward B.K.W. border on abuse. In sum, Father claims the court did not 

place enough weight on the stability factor, see 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(4) 

(“the need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and 

community life”), and, therefore, its decision was error.8 We disagree. 

 First, we note that the court relied on more than Mother’s testimony; 

both parties presented witnesses and the court had a sufficient record before 

it. The court acknowledged its concerns with the sibling relationship and 

questioned whether B.K.W.’s interactions with stepbrother were in B.K.W.’s 

best interests. However, rather than weighting this against Mother, the 

court chose to place no weight for either party with respect to the “sibling 

relationship” factor, see 23 Pa.C.S.§ 5328(a)(6). In light of the conflicting 

testimony, this was not an abuse of discretion. 

The trial court also considered the fact that Father did not attend any 

school conferences, that Father was not compliant in dispensing B.K.W.’s 

____________________________________________ 

8

 We note that neither party sought to have B.K.W. interviewed by the court. 
J-S64014-14 

- 12 - 

AD/HD medication, and that he was not compliant with any of the requests 

for evaluations by Blair County Child Youth and Families.9 In fact, the 

court’s April 5, 2011 order directed Father to insure B.K.W. take his 

medication as prescribed. Father testified that he will not comply with this 

provision of the order, and the court noted Father’s pattern of disregarding 

court orders. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/14, at 16-17. The court,

therefore, weighed factor 5328(a)(12) (“[e]ach party’s availability to care for 

the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements”) slightly in 

favor of Mother. 

The court also weighed factor 5328(a)(13) (“[t]he level of conflict 

between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to 

cooperate with one another”) in favor of Mother. The court noted that 

Mother testified she was willing to talk with and cooperate with Father, 

whereas Father testified he did not want to speak with Mother, had no 

respect for her, and all communications and arrangements were handled by 

his girlfriend. 

The court also weighed factors 5328(a)(14) (history of drug or alcohol 

abuse of a party) and 5328(a)(15) (mental and physical condition of a party) 

____________________________________________ 

9

 On March 17, 2008, the court ordered Father to obtain a mental health and 

drug and alcohol evaluation. On December 16, 2011, the court reiterated 

these requirements and ordered Father to provide to the Blair County 

Custody Office documentary proof of the results of such evaluations and any 

recommended treatment. Father failed to comply with these orders and 

provided no reason for his failure or refusal to do so. 
J-S64014-14 

- 13 - 

in favor of Mother. Although both parties admitted to prior drug addictions, 

the court found Mother’s testimony forthright; she admitted to her 2011 

relapse and followed through with drug tests, whereas Father failed a 2011 

drug test but never followed through with the court’s order that he complete 

a drug and alcohol evaluation. Further, Father never followed through on 

the court’s order that he complete a mental health evaluation. The court 

expressed its concern with Father’s “unwillingness to follow through with 

those reasonable directives[.]” Trial Court Opinion, supra at 21. 

Additionally, with respect to the child’s medication and the competing 

expert testimony, the court stated: 

The child may be overmedicated. However, the Court does not 

know if this is the case. We wish the parties could work together 

as parents to determine the appropriate conclusion. However, it 

is extremely clear that this will not occur soon. It could be that 

the Father is right and the child does not need the medication. 

However, a physician has prescribed the medication. In light of 

this fact the court will not act as a medical expert. The court is 

therefore left to conclude that the Mother’s opinion that the 

medication helps the child and the fact that the medication is 

prescribed by a physician that it is proper to continue the 

medication until the evidence suggests otherwise. Due to this 

fact, the Court believes that it is necessary to consider the 

Mother’s request that the Father’s periods of partial 

custody be modified. . . . [She] believes that this is 

important for stability reasons and believes that it is 

necessary so that she may be able to give the child the 

medication before school on the school days since the 

Father will not do so. We believe that the Mother’s 

request in this regard is reasonable and appropriate. In 

addition, we do believe that stability through the school 

week is important for a child that has numerous cognitive 

disorders that deal with his ability to focus and behave 

appropriately at school. We believe that this stability 

through the school week will hopefully provide more 
J-S64014-14 

- 14 - 

structure. We believe that granting the Mother’s request 

at the present time will serve the child’s best interests. 

Therefore, we will fashion an Order that will modify the 

Father’s periods of custody during the school year. We 

will make up for this by granting him some additional 

hours during the summer when school is not an issue. 

Id. at 21-22 (emphasis added). 

Contrary to Father’s claim, the court clearly relied on much more than 

Mother’s sole testimony in reaching its decision. After our review of the 

parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we find that the trial court’s 

conclusions are supported by competent evidence in the record. The trial 

court properly considered the section 5328(a) factors, explained how it 

weighed the relevant factors, and determined that it was in B.K.W.’s best 

interests to deny Father’s petition for modification, to award the parties 

shared legal and physical custody of the child, and to award Mother primary 

residential custody and Father partial physical custody.10 See C.B. v. J.B., 

65 A.3d 946, 950 (Pa. Super. 2013) (court must delineate reasons for 

____________________________________________ 

10 The court’s order awarded Father partial physical custody as follows: 

during the school year: every other weekend (Friday after school until 

Sunday at 6:30 p.m., every Wednesday and Thursday after school until 6:30 

p.m.); During the summer months, Father shall have partial physical 

custody every other weekend from Friday at noon until Monday at 8:00 p.m. 

and every Wednesday from noon until Thursday at 8:00 p.m. Father shall 

also have a partial custody from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on those Mondays 

following the weekends that Father does not have partial custody. 

Additionally, both parties shall have a consecutive two-week period with 

child during the summer months. The court set forth a holiday schedule, 

and also stated in the order that Father comply with “all reasonable requests 

of the child’s treating physician regarding medication.” See Order, 

4/22/14. 
J-S64014-14 

- 15 - 

decision when making award of custody either on record or in written 

opinion; mere recitation of statute and consideration of § 5328(a) factors en 

masse is insufficient). We find no error or abuse of discretion. C.R.F., 

supra. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/7/2014