J-A15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

BRYAN CAIN

v.

BILLIE CAIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 255 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 11, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 

2020-FC-002885-03

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: JULY 12, 2024

Billie Cain (“Mother”) appeals pro se from the January 11, 20241 order 

entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas that denied Mother’s 

petition to modify custody of C.C. (“Child”) without a hearing. Upon review, 

we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. 

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court has authored a 

comprehensive and accurate procedural and factual history, which we adopt 

for purposes of this appeal. Trial Ct. Op., 3/8/24, at 1-8. In sum, from 2017 

until 2020 the York County Office of Children and Youth (“the Agency”)

received numerous reports regarding Mother’s unstable health and inability to 

care for Child. More recently, in February and June of 2020, the Agency 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The order is dated January 10, 2024, but the clerk did not record notice of 

entry of the order on the docket until January 11, 2024. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b).
J-A15003-24

- 2 -

received reports that Mother and Child had worms in their bodies and coming 

out of their orifices and Mother made Child undergo numerous medical tests 

and procedures to rid Child of the worms. There is no medical documentation 

that Child ever had worms. The Agency continued to implement safety plans 

and offer Mother mental health services, which she refused. On October 14, 

2020, the Agency received a report that Mother had contacted the 

Northeastern Regional Police Department sixteen times during the 2020 

calendar year to make false reports of intruders in her home, bombs in her 

backyard, neighbors placing fireworks under the hood of her car, and various 

other reasons. On October 22, 2020, the Agency obtained emergency custody 

of Child and filed a dependency petition. 

On December 11, 2020, Child’s father Bryan Cain (“Father”) filed a 

complaint for custody of Child. On December 15, 2020, the dependency court 

found that Child was not a dependent child because Father was ready, willing, 

and able to care for Child, awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of 

Child, and dismissed the dependency petition. On January 22, 2021, the 

custody court awarded Father sole legal and primary physical custody of Child. 

The court awarded Mother supervised physical custody of Child several times 

a week. 

On August 25, 2021, Father filed a Petition for Special Relief alleging 

that Mother was exhibiting unstable and potentially harmful behavior while 

Child was in her care. On May 11, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court 

awarded Mother supervised physical custody one weekend per month and 
J-A15003-24

- 3 -

granted Father the power to cancel the visit if Mother exhibited concerning 

behavior. The court also found that Mother’s past behavior of having 

“emotional meltdowns” and taking Child “to doctors several times about 

alleged parasites and so forth that didn’t exist” constituted “medical abuse” 

and urged Mother to engage in more intense mental health treatment. Order, 

5/11/22.

In June, July, and August of 2023 Mother filed petitions for contempt 

against Father, as well as several addendums to the petitions. On November 

1, 2023, after a hearing, the trial court declined to find Father in contempt 

and denied all three petitions. 

On November 16, 2023, Mother filed a petition to modify custody, 

seeking primary physical custody and shared legal custody of Child. In the 

petition, Mother averred that Child was “failing” under Father’s care and that 

Child repeatedly requested to live with Mother. Petition, 11/16/23, at ¶ 6.

Mother attached a psychological evaluation, in which she had participated, to

the petition. On December 19, 2023, a custody conciliation conference 

occurred. 

On January 11, 2024, upon reviewing the conciliator’s report as well as 

the record, the trial court denied Mother’s petition without a hearing. In the 

order, the trial court found that “Mother has not met the burden of proof to 

demonstrate that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the 

entry of the operative [] May [11], 2022 [order].” Order, 12/19/23. The 

order further found that Mother attached “a psychological evaluation, which 
J-A15003-24

- 4 -

appears to be self-reporting with no input from [] Father.” Id. The court 

instructed, “[i]f Mother wishes the [c]ourt to consider the results of a 

psychological evaluation that she undergoes, then the evaluation must be 

non-self-reporting and must include input from Father.” Id. 

Mother filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that her psychological 

evaluation demonstrated “huge positive change” and “was not completely selfreporting.” Motion, 1/22/24. The trial court denied the motion on February 

8, 2024. 

Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In her pro se brief, Mother raises the following issues for our review: 

1. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its

denial of petition to modify without [a] hearing held.

2. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by 

denying petition to modify.

3. Whether the trial court adequality weighed the applicable

information/history.

4. Whether the trial court adequately considered and examined

the situation properly.

5. Whether the trial court failed to correctly apply the law.

6. Whether the trial court has shown bias or ill will in its decision 

making.

Mother’s Br. at 6.

A.
J-A15003-24

- 5 -

This court reviews a custody determination for an abuse of discretion, 

and our scope of review is broad. S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). This court will not find an abuse of discretion “merely because 

a reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion.” In re K.D., 

144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). This Court must accept the findings of 

the trial court that the evidence supports. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 400. 

Importantly, “[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer 

to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the 

proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 

1159 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). We can interfere only where the 

“custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of 

record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation 

omitted). Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party 

claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 

1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

“Pennsylvania law provides that the trial court is only empowered to 

change an existing custody order if the modification will ‘serve the best 

interest of the child.’” Shiflet v. Shiflet, 305 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2023) 

(citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a)). Indeed, when reviewing child custody matters, 

our “paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” is the best interests 

of the child. Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (citation omitted). “The best-interests 

standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which 

legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and 
J-A15003-24

- 6 -

spiritual well-being.” D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566, 572 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(citations omitted). “Common sense dictates that trial courts should strive, 

all other things being equal, to assure that a child maintains a healthy 

relationship with both of his or her parents, and that the parents work together 

to raise their child.” S.C.B. v. J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 916 (Pa. Super. 2019). 

The trial court “shall determine the best interest of the child by 

considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors 

which affect the safety of the child,” including the seventeen factors mandated 

by the Custody Act. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). The court must “delineate the 

reasons for its decision[.]” Id. at § 5323(d). Finally, in any action regarding 

the custody of the child between the parents of the child, there shall be no 

presumption that custody should be awarded to a particular parent and no 

preference based upon gender. 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5327(a) and 5328(b).

B.

In her first issue, Mother avers that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it denied her petition to modify custody without holding a hearing. 

Mother’s Br. at 24. Mother argues that once she and Father could not agree 

during the conciliation conference, the court should have scheduled a 

conference and a hearing. Id. Mother further argues that the trial court failed 

to follow the rules of civil procedure when it disposed of her petition without 

a hearing. Id. We agree. 
J-A15003-24

- 7 -

In actions for custody, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure clearly 

provide that “[n]o judgment may be entered by default or on the pleadings.” 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.9. The comments further explain “the best interest of a child 

is never a purely legal determination. Rather, a multitude of factual 

determinations is required. Thus, the rule provides that there shall be no 

judgment entered on the pleadings.” Id. cmt. 

Instantly, in denying Mother’s petition to modify without a hearing, the 

trial court emphasized that Mother failed to demonstrate a change in 

circumstances and relied on misleading documentation to support her petition 

to modify. The court opined:

In the order denying claims, the trial court found that there was 

no change in circumstances insomuch as [Mother] continues to 

pose a threat of harm to [C]hild. The trial court outlines the 

manner in which [Mother] can refile, once [she] has complied with 

securing a valid evaluation or she can otherwise show that she no 

longer poses a threat of harm. Because the psychological 

evaluation was self-reporting and based on misinformation, and 

absent any other indication that [Mother] has addressed her 

significant mental health issues, the trial court was within its 

authority to determine that [Mother] still posed the same threat 

of harm she did when the previous [o]rder was entered, and that 

further evaluation was necessary before further proceedings can 

begin. 

Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13 (footnote omitted). 

It is well-settled that “the essential issue in deciding whether to modify 

custody is not whether a petitioner has demonstrated a change of 

circumstances.” K.D. v. E.D., 267 A.3d 1215, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2021). 

Rather, our Supreme Court has held that a petition for modification of custody 
J-A15003-24

- 8 -

“requires the court to inquire into the best interest of the child regardless of 

whether a ‘substantial’ change in circumstances has been shown.” Karis v. 

Karis, 544 A.3d 1328, 1332 (Pa. 1988); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a) 

(“Upon petition, a court may modify a custody order to serve the best interest 

of the child.”)

When Mother filed a petition to modify custody, the trial court was 

tasked with determining whether modification was in the best interest of Child. 

To do so, the trial court was required to hold a hearing and make findings. 

Here, not only did the trial court employ the wrong legal standard in violation 

of Section 5338(a) by focusing on whether Mother demonstrated a change in 

circumstances, but the trial court also made a decision on the pleadings—

specifically Mother’s psychological evaluation—without holding a hearing in 

violation of Rule 1915.9. Thus, we conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion. 

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order denying Mother’s petition

and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether 

modifying custody is in Child’s best interest. In light of our disposition, we 

decline to address Mother’s remaining issues. 

Order vacated. Case remanded with instruction. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judge Beck joins the memorandum.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens notes dissent.
J-A15003-24

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/12/2024