J-S42044-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

M.M., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee 

 v. 

K.M., 

Appellant No. 442 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order entered February 14, 2014, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, 

Civil Division, at No(s): 2012-0483-Civil 

BEFORE: PANELLA, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

 K.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the Order entered on February 14, 2014, 

awarding shared legal custody of L.M. (“Child”), a male born in May of 2005 

to Mother and M.M. (“Father”), and awarding primary physical custody to 

Father and partial physical custody to Mother, in accordance with a schedule. 

We affirm. 

 The parties were formerly married, separated in 2009, and divorced in 

 
J-S42044-14 

 -2 - 

2011.1

 Pursuant to a consent custody Order entered on October 25, 2012, 

the parties shared legal custody of Child. Mother had primary physical 

custody, and Father had partial physical custody, in accordance with a 

schedule. 

 On May 29, 2013, Father filed a Petition to modify the custody Order. 

On January 24, 2014, the trial court held a custody trial. At trial, Father 

testified on his own behalf, and presented the testimony of his current wife, 

B.M. (“Stepmother”), as well as that of his mother, M.J.M. (“Paternal 

Grandmother”). Mother testified on her own behalf, and presented the 

testimony of her mother, J.A.P. (“Maternal Grandmother”). Child was 

interviewed in chambers. The trial court also admitted the expert report of 

the court-appointed psychologist, Donna J. Zaffy, Ph.D. (“Dr. Zaffy”), 

regarding her psychological evaluations of Child, Mother, Father, Stepmother 

and Maternal Grandparents. 

On February 14, 2014, the trial court entered its custody Order, 

awarding shared legal custody of Child to Mother and Father, awarding 

primary physical custody to Father, and awarding partial physical custody to 

 

1

 Following the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, Mother began dating 

B.S., and in 2011, B.S. moved in with Mother and Child. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 2/14/14, at 10. B.S.’s children also resided with them fifty percent 

of the time. Id. at 11. In 2012, Mother and B.S. had a son, B. (“HalfBrother”). Id. The trial court determined that this living arrangement was 

“toxic and unsafe,” as B.S. abuses alcohol and has violent anger outbursts. 

See Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/14, at 2. The trial court noted that B.S. tried 

to attack Child twice in Mother’s presence. See Trial Court Opinion, 

2/14/14, at 7. In 2013, Mother, Child and Half-Brother moved into Maternal 

Grandparents’ home. See id. 
J-S42044-14 

 -3 - 

Mother, in accordance with a schedule. See Trial Court Order, 2/14/14, at 

1-2. This Order changed primary physical custody of Child from Mother to 

Father. On that same date, the trial court entered an Opinion setting forth 

the factual and procedural history of the case, as well as the court’s bases 

for its custody Order. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/14/14, at 1-25. 

 Mother timely filed a 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). 

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

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an 

error of law in giving controlling weight to [Child’s] stated 

preference to reside with Father[?] 

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed 

an error of law in failing to give adequate consideration to [Dr. 

Zaffy’s] comprehensive, expert report and recommendations[?] 

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed 

an error of law by failing to consider the full impack [sic] of 

awarding primary custody of [C]hild to Father[,] when[,] by so 

doing[, C]hild will be relocated away from [M]other [and HalfB]rother[,] with whom he has a strong bond, the history of 

Father’s anger [and] alcohol issues, and Father’s desire to 

retaliate against Mother for the years when she had primary 

custody of [C]hild[?] 

Mother’s Brief at 8 (capitalization omitted). 

 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 
J-S42044-14 

 -4 - 

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, 

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). 

 Additionally, we have 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)). 

 In any custody case decided under the Child Custody Act (“Act”),2

 the 

paramount concern is the best interests of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 5328, 5338. Section 5338 of the Act provides that, upon petition, a trial 

court may modify a custody order if it serves the “best interests of the 

child.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5338. Section 5328(a) sets forth the following 

 

2 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340. Because the trial in this matter was held 

in January of 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-S42044-14 

 -5 - 

list of sixteen factors that the trial court must consider when making a “best 

interests of the child” analysis: 

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody 

(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the 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 following: 

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the child and another 

party. 

(2) 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. 

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf 

of the child. 

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s 

education, family life and community life. 

(5) The availability of extended family. 

(6) The child’s sibling relationships. 

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on

the child’s maturity and judgment. 

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the 

other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where 

reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child 

from harm. 

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, 

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for 

the child’s emotional needs. 
J-S42044-14 

 -6 - 

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily 

physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special 

needs of the child. 

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties. 

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability 

to make appropriate child-care arrangements. 

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the 

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one 

another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by 

another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to 

cooperate with that party. 

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or 

member of a party’s household. 

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or 

member of a party’s household. 

(16) Any other relevant factor. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328.3

 Moreover, section 5323(d) mandates that, when the 

trial court awards custody, it “shall delineate the reasons for its decision on 

the record in open court or in a written opinion or order.” Id. at § 5323(d). 

 In her first issue, Mother argues that the trial court erred in giving 

controlling weight to Child’s stated preference to reside with Father. 

Mother’s Brief at 15. Mother contends that, although a child’s wishes are 

important, they are not controlling in custody matters. Id. Mother asserts 

that a child’s preference must be based upon reasons that comport with his 

 

3

 Effective January 1, 2014, the Act was amended to include an additional 

factor at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(2.1) (providing for consideration of child 

abuse and involvement with child protective services). 
J-S42044-14 

 -7 - 

best interests, and that where the child is very young or can give no 

adequate reason for his preference, the trial court is to accord little weight to 

the child’s preference. Id. at 15. Mother contends that Child is young 

(eight years of age), and that he did not articulate emphatic reasons for his 

preference. Id. at 15, 17. Thus, Mother urges, the trial court abused its 

discretion by relying on Child’s stated preference. Id. at 18. 

The preference of a child, although not controlling, is a 

factor to be carefully considered, as long as it is based on good 

reasons. The child’s maturity and intelligence must be 

considered, and the weight to be given the child’s preference can 

best be determined by the judge before whom the child appears. 

Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264, 266 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citations omitted). 

 Here, the trial court identified and discussed each of the sixteen 

section 5328(a) factors in its Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/14/14, at 

19-23. Additionally, the trial court carefully considered Child’s preference to 

live with Father, and found it to be based on good reasons. See id. at 23-

25. Specifically, the trial court determined that, based on Child’s prior “toxic 

and unsafe” living situation with Mother and B.S., Child feared that Mother 

could place him in a bad situation if she moved him from Maternal 

Grandparents’ home. See id. at 24. Further, the trial court found that Child 

preferred to live with Father so that he could spend more time with Father, 

and so that Stepmother could help him with his homework. See id. at 20-

21. The trial court specifically found that Mother’s testimony that she did 
J-S42044-14 

 -8 - 

not know that Child was afraid of B.S. until after they moved from the home 

they shared with him, lacked credibility. See id. at 24 n.1. 

 We defer to the determinations of the trial court as to the credibility 

and weight it gave to the testimony of Child and Mother. See C.R.F., 45 

A.3d at 443. The trial court’s determinations regarding the weight to accord 

Child’s preference do not involve an error of law, and are not unreasonable 

in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court as to the credibility of 

Child and Mother. Id. Thus, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion 

in its affording Child’s stated preference weighted consideration as a section 

5328(a) factor, as Child’s preference was based on good reasons. See

Swope, 689 A.2d at 266. 

 In her second issue, Mother argues that the trial court “chose to 

disregard the comprehensive, well-reasoned and uncontroverted opinion and 

recommendation of the [trial c]ourt’s own expert[, Dr. Zaffy,] and awarded 

primary custody of [Child] to Father.” Mother’s Brief at 20. Mother points 

out Dr. Zaffy’s recommendation that Mother retain primary physical custody 

of Child during the school year, but that Father be awarded an additional 

custodial weekend per month during the school year. Id. Mother claims 

that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration to Dr. Zaffy’s report, 

and discounted her uncontradicted evaluation. Id. 

 [W]hen expert evaluation is uncontradicted or unqualified, 

a child custody court abuses its fact[-]finding discretion if it 

totally discounts expert evaluation. To say that a court cannot 

discount uncontradicted evidence, however, is merely to 
J-S42044-14 

 -9 - 

rephrase the requirement that a child custody court’s conclusion 

have competent evidence to support it. So long as the trial 

court’s conclusions are founded in the record, the lower court 

[is] not obligated to accept the conclusions of the experts. It is 

not this Court’s function to determine whether the trial court 

reached the “right” decision; rather, we must consider whether, 

“based on the evidence presented, given due deference to the 

trial court’s weight and credibility determinations,” the trial court 

erred or abused its discretion in awarding custody to the 

prevailing party. 

King v. King, 889 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted). 

 The trial court explained its reasons for not following Dr. Zaffy’s 

recommendation that Mother should have primary physical custody as 

follows: 

In recommending that the status quo be maintained, Dr. Zaffy 

placed great emphasis on Child’s close bond with Maternal 

Grandparents and their availability to care for Child. Dr. Zaffy 

ignored Mother’s stated intention to move from Maternal 

Grandparents’ home in the foreseeable future. She also did not 

factor in the substantial anxiety that Child feels about moving 

elsewhere with Mother. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/14/14, at 25 n.2. 

 Here, the trial court adequately explained its reasoning, and its 

conclusions are supported by the record. See id. Thus, the trial court’s 

decision to rely on the evidence presented at the custody trial, instead of on 

the recommendation of the court-appointed custody evaluator, was not an 

abuse of discretion. See King, 889 A.2d at 632. 

 In her third issue, Mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to 

fully consider the potential impact of awarding primary custody to Father, 

given that Mother has been Child’s primary custodian since the parties’ 
J-S42044-14 

 -10 - 

separation. Mother’s Brief at 24. Mother relies on the primary caretaker 

doctrine in support of her argument that the trial court should have 

maintained primary physical custody with her. Id. at 25. Mother asserts 

that she has provided Child with a stable and consistent environment, and 

notes the positive role that Maternal Grandparents have played in Child’s life 

as his caretakers. Id. at 26. Mother contends that awarding primary 

physical custody to Father will result in a change in Child’s school, and 

subject Child to haphazard childcare arrangements. Id. 

 The considerations embraced by the primary caretaker doctrine have 

been woven into the section 5328(a) factors, such that they have become 

part of the trial court’s mandatory inquiry. See M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 

331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013). Furthermore, the considerations that the 

primary caretaker doctrine sought to address are included implicitly in the 

section 5328(a) factors. See id. (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328(a)(3) 

(requiring consideration of “[t]he parental duties performed by each party on 

behalf of the child.”); (a)(4) (requiring consideration of “[t]he need for 

stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community 

life.”)). Thus, to the extent that the primary caretaker doctrine required 

positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, it is no longer viable. 

See M.J.M., 63 A.3d at 339 (stating that “[w]e simply cannot graft the 

judicially-created primary caretaker doctrine on to the inquiry that the 

Legislature has established ....”). 
J-S42044-14 

 -11 - 

 Here, the trial court addressed the section 5328(a) factors in its 

Opinion, including factors (a)(3) and (a)(4), before finding that it was in 

Child’s best interests to award primary physical custody to Father. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 1/14/14, at 19-20. We discern no abuse of discretion by the 

trial court, and affirm on this basis as to this issue. See id. 

 Mother also contends that, absent compelling reasons to the contrary, 

siblings should be raised together in one household. Mother’s Brief at 27. 

Mother asserts that Child and Half-Brother are very closely bonded, and that 

Child misses Half-Brother when they are with their respective fathers. Id. at 

28. Mother argues that there are no compelling reasons to separate Child 

and Half-Brother, and that the trial court erred by failing to keep Child and 

Half-Brother together. Id. 

 When considering sibling relationships in making a custody 

determination, 

the policy in Pennsylvania is to permit siblings to be raised 

together, whenever possible (the doctrine of “family unity” or 

“whole family doctrine”). Absent compelling reasons to separate 

siblings, they should be reared in the same household to permit 

the continuity and stability necessary for a young child’s 

development. This policy does not distinguish between halfsiblings and siblings who share both biological parents. 

However, this Court has made clear that the policy against 

separation of siblings is only one factor—and not a controlling 

factor—in the ultimate custody decision. In the majority of cases 

in which this doctrine has been invoked, the children have been 

reared together prior to separation or divorce of the parents. In 

cases where the siblings have not been reared in the same

household, the force of the doctrine is less compelling. 
J-S42044-14 

 -12 - 

Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2004) (some internal 

citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Nomland v. Nomland, 

813 A.2d 850, 855-56 (Pa. Super. 2002) (explaining that the general 

preference to have siblings raised together must yield to the paramount 

principle that the best interests of the child is the determining factor in a 

custody case). 

 Here, the trial court determined that Child’s concerns about his 

stability if he were to remain in Mother’s primary physical custody 

outweighed the concern of separating him from Half-Brother. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 2/14/14, at 23-25. The trial court found Child’s stability 

concerns if he remains in Mother’s primary physical custody were compelling 

reasons for him to live primarily with Father.4

 See Trial Court Opinion, 

3/25/14, at 7. We discern no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in 

separating the half-siblings. 

 Lastly, we address Mother’s contention that the trial court failed to 

consider Father’s character, conduct, and motivation in seeking modification 

of custody. Mother’s Brief at 30. In particular, Mother cites to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5329(a),5

 arguing that the trial court failed to consider Father’s three 

 

4

 The trial court noted that Child and Half-Brother would be together every 

other week in the summer. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/14, at 7. 

5

 Section 5329(a) applies to custody actions and requires the trial court to 

consider whether any party has been convicted of certain alcohol and drugrelated offenses. Section 5329(c) requires the judge to perform an initial 

evaluation to determine whether the party who committed an offense under 
J-S42044-14 

 -13 - 

convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, his conviction for 

possession of marijuana, his continued consumption of alcohol, and his 

anger management issues. Mother’s Brief at 30. Mother contends that the 

trial court erred by dismissing Father’s prior issues with drugs and alcohol 

without conducting a thorough and in-depth investigation to ensure that 

awarding primary custody to Father is in Child’s best interest. Id. at 31. 

Mother also claims that the trial court failed to fully consider Father’s 

motivation in bringing the present action in view of his testimony that he 

wished to retaliate against Mother for not being lenient with him when she 

had custody of Child. Id. 

 Here, the trial court considered Father’s prior alcohol and drug issues, 

and noted that Father’s most recent substance abuse conviction was 

approximately fifteen years prior to the trial. See Trial Court Opinion, 

3/25/14, at 7. The trial court also observed that Mother similarly used 

alcohol and drugs with Father in the past. See id. Further, the trial court 

considered Dr. Zaffy’s statement in her report that Father’s history of drug 

and alcohol abuse did not pose a threat of harm to Child. See id. at 8. 

The record reflects that the trial court also took into account Father’s 

history of anger management issues with Mother and Maternal 

Grandmother, and the fact that Father took an anger management course at 

the time of the parties’ separation, pursuant to a PFA order that Mother 

 

subsection (a) poses a threat to the child, and whether counseling is 

necessary. 
J-S42044-14 

 -14 - 

obtained against him. See id. at 7-8. The trial court found that there was 

no evidence that Father cannot control his temper with Child, and noted that 

Dr. Zaffy expressed no concern about Father’s ability to care for Child. See

id. at 8. 

Finally, the trial court considered Father’s trial testimony that Mother 

should experience what it is like to suffer some loss of time with Child. See

id. The trial court found that Father did not exhibit a retaliatory motive in 

seeking primary physical custody. See id. The trial court was not 

concerned about Father retaliating against Mother by withholding custody 

from her, as the trial court had faith in the influence of Stepmother on the 

situation, and the trial court advised that it would not accept any retaliation 

by Father. See id. at 8-9. 

The trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence in 

the record, and are not unfounded. Therefore, the trial court properly 

considered the section 5328(a) factors, and determined that it was in Child’s 

best interests to award Father primary physical custody of Child. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the trial court. 

 Order affirmed. 
J-S42044-14 

 -15 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/16/2014 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM
Circulated 08/27/2014 10 26 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

M.M. 

Plaintiff 

.~ VB. K.I" . No. 2012 - 0483 - CIVIL 

Defendant 

MEMORANDUM and ORDER 

~ 

» = 

~o;g':::J = ,. 

(.f)iO;;:J ~ 

-H'1l~~ ,." §6~-\ ?J?JI.~ = -n -r, o;o:;:o~ 

zoZ: _0 

..:'~::;o r rAJ 

C"JoPG") :xfT" '--::::'O;;:Jr<l 1) G)Z '-C:--<c:; 

z?J "C -; -;~)'". 2~ " : ...... cnz,n .. co D += " '" 

I~ 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

M.M. 

Plaintiff 

• No. 2012 - 0483 - CIVIL 

Defendant 

MEMORANDUM 

• VALASEK, P.J . 

Before the Court for disposition is a complaint to 

modi f y custo d y of • • •• X.kii'.·\.d ..... • , born May 3, 2005 ("Child") 

M. trI. 

The petition to modify was filed by .......... .("Father") 

k.M. 

on May 29, 2013. ("Mother") currently has 

primary physical custody of Child pursuant to a consent custody 

order entered by the Court on October 25, 2012. Father now seeks 

primary physical custody of Child. 

The Court conducted a custody trial on January 24, 

l 

2014, at which time the parties appeared, represented by counsel. 

The Court heard extended testimony from Mother, Father and Child, 

and brief testimony from other witnesses. The trial record also 

includes psychologist Donna J. Zaffy's written report ("Zaffy's 

ReportH) of psychological evaluations she performed of Mother, 

S-tepM~ Father, 7 Child, and ("Maternal 

GrandparentsH) 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

, , 1 v, .... _IIII!I' 

No. 2Q12-0483-Civil 

FACTS 

After reviewing the entire record, the Court makes the 

following findings of fact. 

Father, age 41, lives in a house in Clarion, Clarion 

County on a one-acre lot in town. Mother's residence is located 

in South Buffalo Township, Armstrong County, approximately 50 

miles away from Father's residence. The drive from one house to 

the other takes approximately an hour and fifteen minutes. 

Father is a high school graduate. 

Father has worked at Clarion Boards Industry since 

August 12, 2013. Before working at Clarion Boards, Father 

worked at B & W Smith Excavating as a foreman setting up gas 

fields. For the excavating company, he was on the road a lot, 

worked 19 to 20-hour days, and never knew when he would be 

working. 

( 

Father quit the gas field job to improve his chances 

of gaining primary custody of Child and to make himself more 

available to Child. For years, Child has been asking Father if 

he could live primarily with Father. Father told Child he would 

do what he could do to satisfy child's request. 

Father now works Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. 

until 5:00 p.m. Father's mandatory hours are from 7:00 a.m. 

until 3:00 p.m., but Father works extra to receive overtime pay. 

However, Father is able to leave work if he needs to, so he is 

2 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

n' ! v . •• -IIIP 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

available if Child needs him for some reason. Father works only 

2% miles from his home. 

Father married 

8.M. (l'Sfefm.+h«') 

his high school sweetheart, ....... 

, on October I, 2011. They started seeing each other 

shortly after Mother and Father divorced. 

SWMO~ 

........ works for Krause USA, where she has worked for 

15 years. She is the manager of customer service and works from 

until 5:00 p.m. ·;tett"S~r has some flexibility in her 

• 

8:00 a.m. 

( hours. 

The summer of 2013 was the first summer that Mother 

and Father exercised physical custody of Child on a week on/week 

off basis. Prior to 2013, Mother had primary custody of Child 

in the summer. 

when Father had custody of Child in the summer of 

2013, Child was mostly taken care of by Father's mother. Father 

f prefers to have family members take care of Child rather putting , 

him in day care. 

Child did attend a neighborhood day care facility 

approximately two days a week in the summer of 2013. Child 

loved attending the day care, where about six of his friends 

also go. The day care facility is very close to Father's house. 

Father's mother ("Paternal Grandmother") is Father's 

first choice for child care because, among other things, 

D. 

Paternal Grandmother has a mentally retarded son, 77 with 

3 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM .7" •. v ... 6_.1 No. 2012-0483-Civil 

whom Child loves to play cards. Child and Paternal Grandmother 

have a very close relationship. 

Paternal Grandmother works at WalMart approximately 20 

hours a week. 

Father's sister house, Paternal Grandmother's 

house, and Father's house are places where Father's family gets 

together for family gatherings. All of Father's family lives 

within three miles of his home, except for one sister, who lives 

30 minutes away in Oil City. 

met Child approximately one year after Father 

l:tgMOtiov fairly s.~.fu,r 

and 2 began dating. Child opened up to 

quickly and they get along very well. 

Sk,fM.ft>w 

~1."51T. and Child are inseparable when Child is at 

Father's house. 

S\GvIl'1'#1w I 7 cooks, cleans, feeds, buys clothes for Child, 

and helps him with his schoolwork. Father tries to help Child 

with his schoolwork 

~ 

"a little," but Child prefers to do it with 

Child has difficulties reading. $ktrW1~ Father and ( 

try to make Child read a minimum of 15 minutes a day. 

In previous years, Father was not very involved with 

Child's schooling. In the school year beginning in August of 

S\QJm,\+IW' 

2013, however, Father and FAtS attended the parent 

S\.tf~ orientation and parent-teacher conferences. 2 $ has also 

4 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM ""'v._ 

~483-Civil 

been communicating with Child's school via e-mail. Father looks 

over Child's schoolwork and papers when Child brings his school 

backpack to Father's house. 

Father has not participated in Child's health 

appointments in the past. However, he plans to do so in the 

future. 

~~11w IIIIIIII places a great deal of importance on Mother 

seeing Child. Should Father receive primary physical custody of 

S\efvrto+llw 

{ Child, tIIIIIt is amenable to Child seeing Mother whenever Child 

wants. 

Father's house is located in the Clarion-Limestone 

School District. The elementary school that Child would have to 

attend in that district is an hour's bus ride away from Father's 

house. Father does not want Child to ride the school bus two 

hours a day. Instead, if Father receives primary physical 

custody 

S\ep!vi<rltler 

of Child, he and ....... will pay to send Child to 

Clarion Elementary School, which is just a mile away. Clarion 

Elementary is operated by the Clarion Area School District. 

There are three third grade classrooms at Clarion 

Elementary School and approximately about 24 or 25 children ln 

each class. 

Currently, Child attends school at south Buffalo 

School in the Freeport Area School District. There are fifteen 

children in his third grade class. 

5 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

7 j v, J 

No, 2012-0483-civil 

Father wants Child to transfer to Clarion'Elementary 

immediately if Father is granted primary custody of Child. 

However, he is willing to wait until the next school year to 

change Child's school if that is what a professional recommends. 

S.(e.p...,.!hw 

If Father gains primary custody of Child, ~ will 

take Child to Clarion Elementary School in the morning and pick 

<5!e?rI'1o+l-!e-,-

him up in the afternoon. ........ will drop Child off at 

Paternal Grandmother's house after school. If Paternal 

... R •. Grandmother is not available, Child will stay with,S • 

•• e ..... Father's sister, or with • 2 his 22-year-old niece. Child 

can also walk to the nearby day care center to be with his 

friends if he wants to. 

According to Father, he raised Child until about the 

age of three, when Mother and Father separated for good. 

When Mother and Father separated in 2009, Mother filed 

a protection from abuse petition against Father. Under the PFA 

order subsequently entered, Father was required to attend six 

weeks of anger management counseling. Father completed the 

class as required. 

The PFA order also contained custody provisions 

whereby Child lived primarily with Mother and Father saw Child 

every other weekend. 

According to Father, Mother never allowed Father to 

spend any additional time with Child, even when Father requested 

6 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM --.qv .. s... _ No. 2012-0483-Civil 

it, unless Father first agreed to relinquish other time with 

Child. Mother denied this. 

On May 17, 2013, Mother called Father and 

8.S. 

tell them that her live-in paramour, had tried 

8·S 

• to attack Child twice the previous evening at Mother and • 's 

B.S. 

home. Mother told them she had protected Child from ..... and 

M. 

would never let 7 hurt Child. Mother stated that Child 

M. 

would never be around 2 again. 

At the time of the phone call to Father, Mother had 

just removed herself and Child from the house they had been 

&.$ J.l.alf·8m~1' sharing with, '. Mother moved herself, Child and'S""_. 

8,<'. . (Mother's baby by ...... ) lnto Maternal Grandparents' house 

nearby. Mother and Child had lived with Maternal Grandparents 

B.s. 

before moving in with .tlli.t 

On May 17, 2013, Father informed Mother that he 

B.s. 

intended to file a protection from abuse petition against ....... 

on Child's behalf. Mother did not object. 

However, that weekend, Mother and her father called 

8.S 

Father to urge him not to file a PFA petition against 1IIIIiiiIt. 

Father filed a petition anyway. A full PFA hearing was 

conducted in June of 2013. The Honorable Joseph A. Nickleach 

denied the PFA petition, telling the parties that he believed 

the matter was a custody issue. 

7 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

..... ,. v. E 3 E 

No. 2012 0483-Civil 

e.>' 

When Mother was living with %, Child never wanted 

to return to Mother's house after Child's visits with Father. 

8.S. 

Child told Father he was afraid of 7 S. 

Father was glad when Mother and Child moved back in 

with Maternal Grandparents because Father knew that Child would 

be safe and well-taken care of there. 

Father has a criminal record consisting of three 

driving under the influence convictions: one in 1991, ODe in 

1992 and the last one in 1996. Father was also convicted of 

possession of marijuana in 1999. 

Father acknowledged to Dr. Zaffy that he had "a past 

history of alcohol and drug use including prescription pills 

(Vicodin) " Zaffy Report, at 13. 

Father went to a 2S-day drug and alcohol 

rehabilitation program at ARC Manor after his second DUI arrest. 

Father also participated in Alcoholics Anonymous "for awhile," 

but has not done so for the past fifteen years. Father said he 

now feels comfortable drinking alcohol because through 

counseling, he has dealt with the problems that caused him to 

drink excessively. Father testified that he drinks about four 

beers per week and no longer smokes marijuana. The threat of 

Father relapsing back to where alcohol is a problem is 

negligible. 

8 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

...... v· .... _1 

No. 2012-0483-civil 

Based upon his past experience, Father is highly 

concerned about what kind of man Mother will date when she moves 

out of Maternal Grandparents' house. Father is also concerned 

that Mother will move back into the house she lived in with 

~. Such a move would greatly upset Child, who has bad 

memories of living there. 

Father is also concerned about Maternal Grandfather's 

behavior. Father said Maternal Grandfather sometimes made Child 

cry when he ("Maternal Grandfather") yelled while watching 

football. Father also said that Paternal Grandfather said mean 

things about Father to Child, including that Father brainwashed 

Child. Father admittedly does not get along with Maternal 

Grandfather. 

Father said it is in Child's 

primarily with him and sttrvloth~cause 

best interest to live 

they can provide Child 

with a stable, active, and stimulating life, and can surround 

Child with people who will give Child all of their attention. 

Father also said it would be better for Child to live in town 

among his friends rather than to be isolated out in the countryside with Maternal Grandparents. In addition, Child has his own 

bedroom at Father's house. 

Father is bitter about the limited amount of time he 

has spent with Child since the parties separated in 2009. 

Father told the Court that if he receives primary custody, 

9 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

v. 

NO. 2012-0483-civil 

Mother should be granted custody of Child every other weekend, 

including in the summer, so that Mother could feel what it has 

been like for Father to not see Child for two weeks at a time. 

Father said Mother should just have two weeks extra with Child 

during the summer, not week on/week off custody. Father later 

• 

told the Court that he did not mean what he said. 

Mother, age 37, lives in a four-bedroom house in South 

""I.f·~ Buffalo Township with her parents, Child and • Mother 

has an undergraduate degree in business management and a 

master's degree in education. 

Mother works as a customer service associate with PNC 

Bank at Pittsburgh Mills. She has worked there since 2012. 

Mother works forty hours a week. She works from 8:45 a.m. until 

6:15 p.m. two or three days a week. Otherwise, she works from 

8:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. 

Mother is required to work two Saturdays per month. 

Mother works on the Saturdays that her boys are with their 

fathers for the weekend. 

Mother gets Child ready for school before she leaves 

for work. After she leaves, Maternal Grandfather makes Child 

breakfast. When Mother comes home from work, she takes over 

IIvJf. \'b rotl1 Weare of Child and .. . 

~.s. Mother and her former paramour, .S .... ~, began living 

together in November of 2011. Child lived with them in a home 

10 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

( . 

2 I V· __ III 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

&.5. 

owned by I.SIl" s ex-wife located approximately half a mile from 

B.S" 

Maternal Grandparents' home. ..... '8 two children also lived at 

the house fifty percent of the 

On August 22, 2012, Child's half-brother, was 

born. 

B.S, 

The incident that spurred Mother to 

• e,., lilt ...;;B .. , S 

leave'" began 

with a fight between 

May 16, 2

e

13. 

• 

B.S. 

? 7 

Child and j I __ a f solder child, on 

and Mother started to argue and Mother 

called L F a liar. The fight turned into a family argument. 

S.~ . Mother asked. ; 

1b.1?. 

to leave. When 7 refused, Mother called 

the police, who then came to the house . j1, .S. ..... 's ex-wife also 

came and removed her children. 

Later that night, Mother made the decision to move 

back in with Maternal Grandparents the next day. Child was 

overjoyed to hear that he was moving back in with Maternal 

Grandparents. Child excitedly ran up to Maternal Grandparents' 

van when they arrived the next day to take him, Mother and 

\tth1.f.Pi .. +t!V 

• back to their house. 

According to Mother, is an alcoholic. Mother 

fJ.s . stated that her relationship with .... was "bad" and "got worse 

over time." 

not like 

Mother testified that Child did not tell her he did 

living with .~·~i until after Mother and Child had 

already moved back in with Maternal Grandparents. 

11 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• 2 v . • 2 .. _l1li. No. 2012-0483-Civil 

~.s. 

Child has told Mother that he did not like living with 

and does not want to live in that house again. Child has 

also told Mother that he wishes to live primarily with Father. 

Maternal Grandparents, Mother, and the children live 

together in the home in which Mother grew up. The house has 

three bedrooms. Child either sleeps with Mother or in the same 

1-lA1-f. 

room as 

Mother is the primary caregiver to Child and 

when she is home. Mother takes the children for their medical 

care. 

Maternal Grandparents have always provided babysitting 

for Child, even when Mother and Child did not live with them. 

Maternal Grandfather is a retired teacher and 

elementary school principal. Maternal Grandmother is a retired 

German teacher. 

Child is close to Maternal Grandparents and enjoys 

i 

, their company. 

Child is close to his half-brother~ and 

enjoys playing with him. 

Child has attended school in the Freeport Area School 

District since kindergarten and has many friends there. Child 

cannot walk to see his friends because they hang out in the 

Borough of Freeport, which is five miles away from Maternal 

Grandparents' house. 

12 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

( 

No. 2012-0483-civil 

Child plays on a basketball team through the family's 

church. Mother is Child's basketball coach. 

Father brings Child to Child's basketball games when 

Child is staying with Father. 

Child is in third grade. He has been struggling with 

reading and receives special help during the school day pursuant 

to Title I. There is also after-school tutoring available at 

school. However, Mother has been told by the school that the 

after-school tutoring would not be helpful to Child. 

Mother works with Child after school to improve his 

reading, spelling and vocabulary skills. Maternal Grandparents 

also help Child with his reading and his homework. 

There is a Custody Order consented to by Mother and 

December of 2013 which gives Mother primary physical 

custody of b,~. , 'I fIp If· flOt\1W' has partial custody of every 

other weekend from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and on 

e, ,S. 

Sunday, 0 , !lA1f..&~ also has custody of 1 two days during the 

week. 

Mother said she has no plans to leave her parents' 

home I-W.I+.~~ "right now." She testified that she, Child and 7 7 are 

stable and happy and there is no reason to leave. 

Mother said she will not remain at Maternal 

Grandparents' house indefinitely, however. Eventually, when she 

has enough money, she plans to move to an apartment. 

13 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• No. 2012-0483-Civil 

Mother and the children are welcome to stay with 

Maternal Grandparents as long as they want. Maternal 

Grandmother said Mother had not talked to her about any 

"immediate" plans to leave. 

~.s. Mother owns the four-bedroom house that she and.-.. 

previously lived in. Mother currently has a tenant occupying 

the house. The rent she receives from the tenant pays for her 

$1,179 monthly mortgage payment. Mother said that before moving 

back into that house, she would first ask Child if it would 

bother him to live there again. 

Because of Mother's "bad" relationships with Father 

~.£. and~, Mother is seeing a therapist. She is learning how to 

set boundaries in her relationships with significant others and 

how to be more assertive. 

Mother and Father have worked out a system of 

{ 

communication consisting of text messages and telephone calls. 

Mother frequently calls SWTDrw I since the two of along 

and communicate calmly. Mother finds talking to 1;~~I~e:as i e r 

than talking to Father. 

Mother calls Father them of what 

she has learned at Child's medical appointments. 

~Of\1'" Mother and4llillt coordinate their vacations with one 

another. Mother and her family spend a week at the beach in 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

( 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

North Carolina every yeari Father and his family spend a week at 

Myrtle Beach. 

Because of the traumas that Child has suffered, Mother 

supports Child having a full mental health assessment and 

possible mental health counseling as Dr. Zaffy has suggested. 

Both Father and Mother admittedly partied with drugs 

and alcohol prior to the time Child was born. Father and Mother 

continued to use drugs and alcohol at times until Child was 

approximately three years old. 

and 

Father She is 

concerned that if Child lives primarily with Father, his reading 

issues will be totally ignored, he will not be disciplined, and 

he will lose his strong bond with his little half-brother. 

The Court interviewed Child in chambers. The Court 

agrees with Dr. Zaffy that Child "did not appear to be coached 

but, rather, to be sharing his own thoughts and feelings." 

Zaffy Report, at 10. 

Child wishes to live mostly with Father because "I 

like him and I like to see him a lot." Child told the Court, 

"It would make me feel happy to live with my Dad." 

Child said he gets along better 

Mother. He also said that he gives Mother, but 

15 

than with 

not5~ a 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

, 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

hard time about having to do his homework. Child likes doing 

homework with ~ 

Father and Child read together every night for fifteen 

minutes before bed. Father told Child he will do homework with 

Child if Child comes to live with him. 

Child said he would have no problem going to a new 

school and not being around his old friends. Child said he 

liked making new friends. 

Child said he would miss Mother if he lived primarily 

with Father, so he would like to live with Mother ODe week OD, 

one week off during the summer. Child said he did worry about 

Mother missing him when he was with Father in the past. 

Child told the Court that he was scared living with 

&.$. 

"because he was always mean to me. 1/ In addition, 's 

two children would do "stuff" and put the blame on Child. 

Child said Mother knew that Child was scared [when 

~S. they were living with ], but that she still wanted to live 

~.S. with 

Child worries that he might have to live in the same 

B.s. 

house again that he had lived in with Child said he did 

not want to remember what had happened there. He mentioned bad 

..... ~iiilS •. memories of ~& getting drunk, yelling at him and throwing him 

on the couch. 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• 

\. 

Father has told Child that he missed Child a lot when 

Child was not with him. Father told Child that he sometimes 

slept on Child's bed when he missed Child. Child misses Father, 

too, when Child is not with Father. 

Asked what disparaging things Mother and Father have 

said about each other to him, Child replied that Mother just 

says Father is a lunatic, "that's all." Father says "bad stuff" 

about Mother sometimes, Child said. Father told Child that he 

did not like Mother and that Mother was being mean to him. 

Dr. Zaffy conducted psychological evaluations of 

Mother, Father, Child, srr~nd Maternal Grandparents for the 

Court. 

Childs 

Dr. Zaffy said, '_' s descriptions of his two 

families indicate that he has formed positive attachments to 

both of his parents and his well as 

to his stepmother and maternal grandparents." Zaffy Report, at 

10. 

(.kilt.! 

...... "enjoys interacting with members of the extended 

families, especially mother's family." Id. at 10. 

Dr. Zaffy stated, "In summary, ... , neither the 

parents, stepmother, nor the grandparents are exhibiting any 

mental health concerns that compromise their ability to care 

(klild appropriately for~. All love IIIIIPand are able to meet 

his emotional needs." Zaffy Report, at 22. "The primary 

17 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

concerns center on co-parenting and the difficulty the parents 

have in communicating about their son." Id. 

Dr. Zaffy ultimately recommended that Mother retain 

primary custody of Child and that Father have additional 

weekends with Child during the school year because she saw no 

good reason to disturb the status quo. Dr. Zaffy was 

particularly impressed with Maternal Grandparents, stating, "The 

Ma~ ~~~~e to provide a stable, safe, and secure home 

environment for both of their grandsons. Since both 

retired, they are available to provide child care if 

are 

,§~i1i is 

off ~~~~o~rs ill when his mother is at work. In addition, the 

both of whom are teachers, are well-equipped to help 

&With his academic challenges." Id. 

DISCUSSION 

The primary concern in any custody case is the best 

C interests of Child. This best interests standard considers all 

factors that legitimately have an effect upon Child's physical, 

intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. Saintz v. 

Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2006). 

Section 5328 of the Pennsylvania Child Custody Law, 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a), provides a list of factors that the Court 

must consider in making any custody determination. We address 

each factor separately below. 

18 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

( 

\. 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

1. Which party is more likely to encourage and 

permit frequent and continuing contact between Child and the 

other party. In the past, Mother has been the party less likely 

to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between 

Child and Father. At present, the Court believes that neither 

party is more likely to do so than the other. Father has 

expressed 

medicine. 

some desire to give Mother a taste of her 

However,Sf€t~~ a positive influence 

own 

on Father in 

this regard and is likely to encourage Child to have extra time 

with Mother, not less. 

2. Abuse committed by a party or a member of a 

party's household. Mother obtained a PFA order against Father 

in 2009 when Mother and Father separated. Mother told Dr. Zaffy 

that the PFA was based upon a push that Father gave her. The 

PFA required Father to take anger management classes. Father 

complied. In her evaluation of Father, Dr. Zaffy expressed no 

concerns regarding Child's safety around Father. The Court 

finds that Father poses absolutely no danger to Child. 

3. The parental duties performed by each party on 

behalf of Child. It is not clear who the primary caregiver for 

Child was prior to separation. Mother has had primary physical 

custody of Child since the parties separated in 2009. Mother 

takes Child to see the doctor and helps Child with his homework. 

Mother has been the parent interacting with Child's school until 

19 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• 

SIt(mIGthU' 

the 2013-2014 school year, when Father and ~have become 

more involved. 

4. The need for stability and continuity III Child's 

education, family life and community life. Child is 

affirmatively asking to change his school, community, and family 

life. Child seems quite happy at the prospect of doing so. 

Child remains quite shaken from his experience of having lived 

~.s. with 7 ., an angry alcoholic, and ~$. ..... '8 bullying children 

for a year and a half. 

Father and SWlYloli1u'than 

Child evidently feels more secure with 

with Mother, whom he foresees will move 

out of Maternal Grandparents' house, thus subjecting Child to 

more uncertainty. 

5. The availability of extended family. Both Mother 

and Father have extended family to help out with child care. 

6. Child's sibling relationships. Child has 

developed a solid bond with half-brother-••••••• C 

7. The preference of Child. Child has been asking 

to live with Father andS~or years. There is no evidence 

that Child has been coached or subverted into making this 

request. Child simply wishes to spend significantly more time 

with Father. He also likes being around~with whom 

Child has developed a very strong bond. 

relationship with~s illustrated 

The strength of Child's 

by the fact that Child, 

by his own admission, makes a big fuss when it is time to do his 

20 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

No. 2012 0483-Civil 

homework, but not when he is With~ Sl-epMJi:!!er 

_ is Child's 

favorite person to do homework with, which is extremely 

important, since Child has been struggling with reading and does 

not like to do homework at all. 

8. The attempts of a parent to turn Child against 

the other parent. There is evidence that Mother and Father have 

occasionally tried to turn Child against the other parent by 

making disparaging remarks in front of Child. 

9. Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, 

stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with Child 

adequate for Child's emotional needs. Father is more likely to 

do so. Father demonstrated a great deal of commitment to 

Child's welfare when he quit his previous job, which required 

long hours and frequent absences from home, to make himself 

available to Child on a daily and consistent basis. By 

{ 

contrast, Mother showed extremely bad judgment and a lack of 

~.'S. concern for Child when Mother chose to remain with in the 

e..s. 

face of Child's expressed fear of 7 and the situation. 

10. Which party is more likely to attend to the daily 

physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special 

needs of Child. Father is more likely to do so with the help of 

his wife, 

11. The proximity of the residences of the parties. 

The parties live approximately fifty miles apart. 

21 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

No. 2012-0483 Civil 

12. Each party's availability to care for Child or 

ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements. Each party 

is available to care for Child when not working. Each party 

also has the ability to make appropriate child-care 

arrangements. 

13. The level of conflict between the parties and the 

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one 

another. The parties have a significant level of conflict. It 

is not clear that either party is more willing and able to 

cooperate than the other. The 

Sffiltl10fhw 

Court sees ........ as a very 

helpful go-between for the parties at this point. However, it 

is in Child's best interests that Mother and Father learn to 

deal with each other directly. 

14. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party 

or member of a party's household. Father has a history of drug 

and alcohol abuse. He does not currently appear to be abusing 

substances, however. Mother also has some history of alcohol 

and drug abuse, although not to the extent that Father does. 

Chances of a relapse by either are negligible. 

15. The mental and physical condition of a party or 

member of a party's household. The parties and the members of 

their households do not suffer from any mental or physical 

conditions that significantly affect their abilities to care for 

Child. 

22 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• I] 

NO. 2012-0483-civil 

16. Any other relevant factor. In recommending that 

Child remain primarily with Mother, Dr. Zaffy placed a great 

deal of weight on Child's bond with his half-brother 

It is true that the "general rule is that siblings 

should not be separated without compelling reasons .... If Swope v. 

Swope, 689 A.2d 264, 265 (Pa.Super. 1997) (citation omitted) . 

However, this policy is "only one factor to be considered in 

determining the best interests of the child." Id. " [A]ny 

l benefit derived from forcing a child to reside with one of its 

parents solely for the purpose of keeping the siblings together 

can be outweighed by the detrimental effects on the child who 

prefers not to live with that particular parent." Sykora v. 

Sykora, 393 A.2d 888, 889 (Pa.Super. 1978). We note, too, . that 

\ttI.\f·~\tIw Child and I are only half-siblings, not full-siblings. 

In the instant case, Child has been thinking about 

where he wants to live for years. Although Child is close to 

~:'~:~and Maternal Grandparents, Child has repeatedly stated 

that he is "OK" with being separated from tln'f.f~ and Maternal 

Grandparents and that he places a higher importance on being 

~l\1oH7ey with Father and-~. 

Mother testified that she intended to move out of her 

parents' house and strike out on her own when she has enough 

money to rent an apartment. Mother emphasized that she did not 

intend to move out "right now." Maternal Grandmother emphasized 

23 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

( 

No. 2012-0483-Civil 

that Mother had not discussed any "immediate" plans to move out. 

However, to the Court, these carefully chosen words suggest that 

Mother will be moving out sooner rather than later. 

That prospect is what causes Child to be worried about 

the future. Understandably, given his previous bad experience, 

Child does not want to move somewhere else with Mother. Child 

has stated that if and when Mother does move out, he would much 

rather go live with Father, or failing that, remain with 

Maternal Grandparents in their home. 

The record is clear: Mother chose to reside with an 

angry, alcoholic boyfriend for a year and a half, despite the 

fact that, as Mother herself put it, the relationship was a bad 

one and got worse over time. Mother decided to keep Child in a 

toxic and unsafe situation, even after Child told Mother that he 

(l)S. e, .S. 

was afraid of & i and that _ had pushed him. 1 

Mother's poor judgment and apparent lack of concern 

for Child's well-being was not lost on Child. He seems 

determined not to be put in that situation again. Child wants 

certainty and security, not uncertainty and insecurity. He 

s.h>J1lV1o+\1t.r 

prefers to live with Father and-....... , who have a loving 

es. t Mother testified that she did not know Child was afraiGlgf ...... until after 

they had moved out of the house they were sharing with~.~ Court does 

not find Mother's testimony to be credible. Child made it clear that he had 

told Mother that he was afraid, and that she decided to stay with ..... 

anyway. &.!i24 
Circulated 08/27/2014 10:26 AM

• 

NO. 2012-0483-Civil 

marriage and who show every intention of staying put in Clarion. 

Child's desire is wholly rational. 

As shown above, there are compelling reasons for Child 

to live primarily with Father, despite the fact that he will be 

H1Ilf.(3~ separated from & 1.2 Therefore, the Court finds that it is 

in Child's best interests to live primarily with Father and will 

award Father primary physical custody of Child . 

An appropriate Order will be entered. 

2 In recommending that the status quo be maintained, Dr. Zaffy placed great 

emphasis on Child's close bond with Maternal Grandparents and their 

availability to care for Child. Dr. Zaffy ignored Mother's stated intention 

to move from Maternal Grandparents' home in the foreseeable future. She also 

did not factor in the substantial anxiety that child feels about moving 

elsewhere with Mother. 

25