J-S38032-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

F.A.S., IV, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

R.C.H., FORMERLY R.C.S.,

Appellee No. 354 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order entered January 23, 2015, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County, 

Civil Division, at No(s): 433-2010 CV

BEFORE: WECHT, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2015

F.A.S., IV, (“Father”) appeals from the Order granting the Petition for 

modification of custody filed by R.C.H., formerly R.C.S. (“Mother”), which 

awarded the parties shared legal custody of two of the parties’ female 

children, H.R.S. (born in October 2001) and A.J.S. (born in April 2003)

(collectively, “the Children”), awarded Mother primary physical custody and 

awarded Father partial physical custody.1 We affirm.

The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history 

of this case, in relevant part, as follows:

 

1 Since the hearings in this matter took place in August and October of 2014, 

the Child Custody Act (“Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321 to 5340, is applicable. 

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 445 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that the Act 

applies to custody evidentiary proceedings that commence on or after the 

effective date of the Act, January 24, 2011).
J-S38032-15

- 2 -

8. The parties were formerly husband and wife, but were 

divorced [in December 2010].

9. As part of the parties’ Divorce Decree, entered [in December 

2010, the trial court] adopted the parties’ Post Nuptial 

Agreement, which provided for a 50/50 custody split of the 

minor [C]hildren.

10. An Order was entered on October 25, 2012[,] which 

provided that the parties have shared custody on a 5 day/5 

day/2 day/2 day schedule. Specifically, Mother has the 

[C]hildren on Monday and Tuesday, Father has the [C]hildren on 

Wednesday and Thursday, and the weekends alternate.

11. On January 17, 2013, the [trial court] entered an Order 

which provided that the parties would share custody on a week 

to week basis over the summer months.

12. Since January 17, 2013, the parties have been following the 

5 day/5 day/2 day/2 day schedule during the school year[,] and 

the week to week schedule during the summer.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 2 (unnumbered). 

On July 3, 2014, Mother filed a Petition for modification of custody, 

seeking primary physical custody of the Children. At the hearings held on 

Mother’s Petition, Mother and Father testified on behalf of themselves. In 

addition, the trial court examined the Children in chambers, with counsel for 
J-S38032-15

- 3 -

both parties present. 2 Although the parties’ daughter, B.R.S. was 

questioned by both counsel, only Father’s counsel questioned H.R.S. 

After the hearing, the trial court found that both Mother and Father 

reside in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania. Additionally, the trial court made the 

following findings of fact:

3. Mother works at Jersey Shore Hospital as an occupational 

therapist. Her work schedule is Monday through Friday from 

8:00 A.M. to somewhere between 1:00 P.M. and 4:30 P.M.; 

however, she also works one Sunday per month.

4. There was no testimony regarding Father’s place of 

employment or his current work schedule.[3]

5. At the time the [P]etition was filed, the parties were the 

parents of three (3) minor children, [B.R.S.], [H.R.S.], and 

[A.J.S.]. . . .

 

2 The trial court noted that, at the time Mother filed her Petition for 

modification of custody, the parties’ third daughter, B.R.S. (born in October 

1996), was a minor. Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 1 (unnumbered). 

B.R.S. turned eighteen prior to the entry of the custody Order at issue in this 

appeal. Thus, the trial court stated that B.R.S. is able to decide for herself 

regarding her primary residence. Id. at 6 (unnumbered). The trial court 

concluded, however, that B.R.S.’s testimony remains relevant because she 

was able to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the 

Petition, as well as her interactions with her parents and sisters regarding 

this matter. Id. at 6-7 (unnumbered). The trial court also noted that the 

parties are the parents of an adult son, F.A.S., V (“F.A.S.”), who was 

nineteen years old at the time of entry of the custody Order. Id. at 2 

(unnumbered). 

3 On cross-examination, Father confirmed that he was still working for 

Verizon, as he testified at a previous hearing, and that he leaves for work at 

approximately 6:35 a.m., taking A.J.S. to her bus stop, and that he arrives 

home at 4:00 p.m. N.T., 10/14/14, at 85. There was no further testimony 

concerning Father’s employment.
J-S38032-15

- 4 -

6. All three girls are currently enrolled in the Jersey Shore Area 

School District. [B.R.S.] is in twelfth grade at the Jersey Shore 

High School. [H.R.S.] is in seventh grade at the Jersey Shore 

Middle School. [A.J.S.] is in fifth grade at the Jersey Shore 

Elementary School.

* * *

13. Mother and Father have a notebook that they pass back and 

forth when exchanging custody. The notebook contains notes on 

what is going on with each child, i.e.[,] things that happened 

while the child was in the other party’s custody or upcoming 

events, etc.

* * *

15. Mother testified that she had written something in the 

notebook regarding custody prior to filing with the Court.

16. The issue of changing the custody schedule was originally 

brought up by [H.R.S.], who testified that she got into an 

argument with her Father[,] and afterward told Mother she 

would prefer if Mother had primary physical custody.

17. After [H.R.S.] brought up the issue of custody, Mother asked 

[B.R.S.] and [A.J.S.] about it[,] and both girls told Mother that 

they also would prefer [that] Mother have primary physical 

custody.

18. Mother decided to file for custody after having these 

discussions with her daughters. Mother, as well as the girls, 

testified that neither parent had brought up the issue of custody 

to the [C]hildren; it was all prompted by H.R.S.’s original 

discussion with Mother.

19. [In July 2014], Mother married [D.H. (“Stepfather”)]. The 

[C]hildren testified that they get along with [Stepfather], but 

that they have overheard him say negative things about 

[Father].

20. Father is currently in a relationship with his girlfriend, [R.,] 

who lives in the Bellefonte area, but she and Father spend a 

considerable amount of time together. The [C]hildren get along 
J-S38032-15

- 5 -

with [R.], but again they have heard her saying negative things 

about [Mother].

21. [B.R.S.] and [H.R.S.] are very involved in sports. Both girls 

play basketball and softball. Father coaches their softball teams.

22. During the October 14, 2014 hearing, each of the three girls 

offered testimony to the [trial court] regarding their preferences.

23. [B.R.S.] testified that her preference would be for Mother to 

have the girls for the majority of time[,] with Father having 

extended, alternating weekends. She stated that she prefers 

more time with Mother because she is more comfortable with her 

[m]other[,] and Mother is easier to talk with.

24. [B.R.S.] stated that [Father] approached her about the 

custody issue[,] and told her that she was being “selfish[,]” and 

that[,] if Mother were to get primary custody[,] he would lose 

his house[,] and would have to live with his mother. Father was 

crying during this conversation with [B.R.S.].

25. [B.R.S.] testified that she has discussed the matter of 

custody with her sisters[,] and she believes [H.R.S.] and [A.J.S.] 

would also prefer to reside primarily with Mother; however, 

[H.R.S.] has since changed her mind because she does not like 

conflict.

26. [B.R.S.] also stated that she believes all three girls should 

have the same custody schedule because they have always been 

together[,] and she noted that since [F.A.S.] began living solely 

with Father[,] they rarely see him.

27. [H.R.S.] testified that she did initially bring up the idea of 

Mother having primary custody, but she has since changed her 

mind[,] and she would prefer for the custody schedule to remain 

as it is now. She does believe that all three girls should have

the same custody arrangement, though.

28. During her testimony, [H.R.S.] testified that she is also more 

comfortable talking to [Mother]. She stated that Father pushes 

her to tell him everything[,] and she is not always comfortable 

talking to him.
J-S38032-15

- 6 -

29. [H.R.S.] stated that Father discussed the issue of custody 

with her after Mother filed the papers. She stated Father was 

crying as he told her that[,] if Mother gets primary custody[,] he 

would only see the girls four (4) times a month. [H.R.S.] 

testified that this upset her.

30. [A.J.S.] testified that she would prefer spend more time with 

Mother.

31. [A.J.S.] stated that[,] during Father’s custodial periods[,] her 

grandmother helps her with homework[,] and she does not like 

that, because if [her] grandmother can’t help her[,] then she has 

to ask [Father] and[,] if he is unable to help[,] then she has to 

ask her sisters[,] and they don’t like to help her.

32. When at Mother’s [home], Mother helps [A.J.S.] with 

homework. [A.J.S.] stated that she understands her school work 

better when Mother helps with it.

33. Because [A.J.S.] is more comfortable doing her homework 

with Mother, she testified that she would prefer Mother have 

custody on school days[,] and Father have custody on 

alternating weekends.

34. [A.J.S.] did state that she talked to [B.R.S.] about custody[,] 

and that [B.R.S.] told her what she would prefer but made sure 

that [A.J.S.] knew she did not have to agree with it.

35. According to [A.J.S.], at one point[,] Mother explained to all 

three girls what was going on with the court filings[,] and gave 

them a calendar to sit down and decide what custody schedule 

they would prefer. Mother left the girls alone to discuss their 

preferences, and [B.R.S.] marked her preference as Monday 

through Thursday with Mother and alternating weekends, from 

Friday to Sunday, with Father. [A.J.S.] stated that she was in 

agreement with this because it would allow Mother to be the one 

who helps her with homework[,] and she would get weekend 

time with both Mother and Father. [A.J.S.] stated that[,] during 

this discussion, [H.R.S.] indicated that she would prefer the 

schedule remain as it is now.

36. [A.J.S.] testified that [Father] spends a lot of time with 

[B.R.S.] and [H.R.S.’s] softball teams; therefore, she doesn’t get 
J-S38032-15

- 7 -

to see him much. She ends up being with either paternal 

grandmother or Father’s girlfriend during those times.

37. Consistent with [B.R.S.] and [H.R.S.], [A.J.S.] also stated 

that she believes all three girls should have the same custody 

schedule.

38. Again consistent with her sisters’ testimony, [A.J.S.] stated 

that she is more comfortable talking with [Mother] than she is 

[with Father].

39. Father also told [A.J.S.] that[,] if Mother were to have more 

custodial time[,] he would be forced to pay her more in child 

support[,] and would[,] therefore[,] lose his home[,] and have 

to live with his mother.

40. There was an issue regarding summer homework that 

[A.J.S.] was supposed to do in order to prepare her for her next 

school year. Father testified that he did this summer work with 

[A.J.S.], but both [A.J.S.] and [B.R.S.] stated that Father did not 

do the summer work with [A.J.S.]. [A.J.S.] testified that Mother 

would send the papers to Father’s home by way of the notebook 

that the parents exchange[,] but that Father never did them with 

her[;] instead he would let her play educational apps on a 

Kindle.

41. It is noted that both Mother and Father also testified that 

they believe it is important for the three girls to remain together 

and have the same custody schedule; however, as [B.R.S.] is 

now eighteen (18) years old and able to decide for herself where 

she wants to live, Father does not believe that the other two 

girls should be forced to reside primarily with Mother just 

because [B.R.S.] may decide to do so.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 1-6 (unnumbered) (footnote added).

In an Order entered on January 23, 2015, the trial court awarded 

primary physical custody to Mother, with Father receiving partial physical 

custody in accordance with a schedule, and shared legal custody. Father 
J-S38032-15

- 8 -

timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of errors complained 

of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).

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

A. Did the trial court err in failing to require [Stepfather] to be 

viewed by the court and subject to cross examination[?] 

B. Did the trial court err in showin[g] bias against [Father] by 

total[ly] ignoring or unreasonably rejecting issues raised by 

evidence of record:

1. Mother’s continuous hostility toward Father as evidenced 

by her assisting [F.A.S.,] to escape from [Father’s] custody 

during the middle of the night without notifying [Father;]

2. Mother’s immature and dangerous reaction when she 

became annoyed with [F.A.S.] and threw him out of her 

house, disabled his cell phone, knowing that [F.A.S.] would 

have approximately a ten (10) mile walk through a wooded 

area to [Father’s] residence[;]

3. [Stepfather’s] bizarre behavior and alcohol[-]related 

conduct in front of the Children[?] 

C. Did the trial court err in unreasonably considering [B.R.S.’s] 

desires and testimony[,] as she is not a minor[,] and was not 

subject to the court’s jurisdiction as of October 21, 2014[?]

Father’s Brief at 7.

In custody cases, our standard of review is 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, the test is whether the trial court’s conclusions are 
J-S38032-15

- 9 -

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., 445 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

The 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) (citation 

omitted). 

With any custody case decided under the Act, 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. Id. § 5338. To 

make this determination, Section 5328 of the Act sets forth the following 

factors that the trial court must consider:

(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. 

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and (2) 

(relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with 

protective services). 
J-S38032-15

- 10 -

(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.

(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.
J-S38032-15

- 11 -

Id. § 5328.4 “All of the factors listed in section 5328(a) are required to be 

considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. 

J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in original); accord

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

Section 5323(d) provides that a trial court “shall delineate 

the reasons for its decision on the record or in open court or in a 

written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5323(d). Additionally, 

“section 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its 

mandatory assessment of the sixteen [Section 5328 custody] 

factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice 

of appeal.” C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), 

appeal denied, [620 Pa. 727], 70 A.3d 808 (2013). Section 

5323(d) applies to cases involving custody and relocation. 

A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2013).

In expressing the reasons for its decision, “there is no 

required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all 

that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered 

and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” 

M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal 

denied, [620 Pa. 710], 68 A.3d 909 (2013). A court’s 

explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately 

addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section 5323(d). 

Id.

 

4 Effective January 1, 2014, the statute 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). Although the 

amendment was in effect at the time of the custody hearings in August and 

October of 2014, the trial court did not specifically address it in its Opinion 

entered on January 23, 2015. The trial court, however, stated that there 

was no testimony of abuse by any party, and that the Children are safe in 

both homes. Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 8 (unnumbered). 
J-S38032-15

- 12 -

A.V., 87 A.3d at 822-23.5

In his first issue on appeal, Father claims that the trial court erred in 

failing to require that Stepfather be subject to cross-examination. Father’s 

Brief at 11. In a related claim raised in Father’s second issue, Father claims 

that the trial court erred in disregarding the uncontested testimony that 

Stepfather has threatened and intimidated Father, and that Stepfather has 

displayed bizarre and alcoholic behavior. Id. Father urges that these 

matters are particularly relevant to the factors set forth at Section 

5328(a)(14), (15), and (16). Father’s Brief at 11-12. According to Father, 

subsections (14) and (15) direct the court to consider the history of drug 

and alcohol abuse of a member of the party’s household, and the mental and 

physical condition of a member of the party’s household. Id. at 11. Father 

alleges that Mother has allowed Stepfather’s hostility against him to be very 

apparent to the Children. Id. Father also asserts that Mother’s cavalier 

attitude toward Stepfather’s behavior in front of the Children is disturbing. 

Id. 

 

5

In its Opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court adopted 

the reasoning set forth in its Opinion and Order entered on January 23, 

2015, which set forth its analysis of the section 5328(a) custody factors. On 

March 6, 2015, the trial court filed an Amended Opinion and Order, 

correcting a typographical error in the date of the October 14, 2014 custody 

hearing. The trial court noted that Father had not requested the 

transcription of either hearing in this matter. Nevertheless, transcripts of 

the two days of hearings are part of the certified record, so we are able to 

conduct our appellate review. 
J-S38032-15

- 13 -

Upon review, we conclude that Father has waived any objection to the 

lack of testimony by Stepfather, as he did not object to the absence of 

Stepfather’s testimony at the custody hearing. Issues not raised in the trial 

court are waived, and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); E.D., 33 A.3d at 78. Additionally, Father could have 

presented Stepfather as a hostile witness in his own case.6

Even if Father had preserved his issue, we would conclude that it lacks 

merit. The record reflects that the trial court considered the hostilities 

between the parties, and their significant others, in relation to section 

5328(a)(13):

There exists quite a bit of conflict between the parties in 

this matter. Since their separation, the parties’ primary form of 

communication is through text messages or the use of the 

notebook that the parties exchange back and forth. Both parties 

also testified that they have experienced conflict with the other 

party’s significant other. [Stepfather] has been known to 

criticize Father; however, the [C]hildren did indicate that he 

does not do so directly in front of them but they have overheard 

his comments. Both parties, as well as the [C]hildren, testified 

that Mother attempts to put a stop to [Stepfather’s] negative 

comments. Mother has also been on the receiving end of 

negative comments made by Father’s girlfriend, [R.], some of 

which have been made in the presence of the [C]hildren. There 

was no testimony that Father attempts to put a stop to [R.’s] 

behavior.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 13-14 (unnumbered). In relation to Section 

5328(a)(14), and (15), the trial court observed that

 

6 The record reflects that the parties agreed to the structure of the hearing, 

with Mother first addressing the sixteen best interest factors, followed by 

Father addressing the factors. N.T., 8/13/14, at 3-4.
J-S38032-15

- 14 -

[t]here was no testimony of drug or alcohol abuse by any party 

or member of the party’s household. There was some discussion 

of the fact that Mother and [Stepfather] go to different clubs 

during the weeks to sign the books; however, there was no 

indication that they spend significant amounts of time drinking in 

these clubs or that they are alcoholics. They merely go around 

and sign the books in attempts to win some money. 

* * *

... Father and [R.] have no mental or physical conditions. 

There was no indication that [Stepfather] suffers from any 

mental or physical condition. However, Mother testified that she 

is currently prescribed 10 mg. of Celexa for anxiety, a condition 

that began right after [A.J.S.] was born. Mother stated that this 

condition is treated through her family physician; she does not 

see a psychiatrist. She does not believe that her anxiety affects 

her ability to care for her [C]hildren.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 14-15. The trial court’s findings are 

supported by evidence presented at the custody hearings. 

At the hearings, Mother denied that she or Stepfather have ever had 

drug or alcohol issues. N.T., 8/13/14, at 38. Mother admitted that she 

takes Celexa daily as prescribed by her family physician for her anxiety. Id.

at 39. Mother stated that her medication controls her condition, and that 

the Children are not affected. Id. The parties thoroughly explored an 

incident involving Stepfather dancing on a table at a wedding, in front of the 

Children, after he had been drinking. N.T., 10/14/14, at 98-99. Mother 

admitted that the Children were present at the time, and denied that 

Stepfather was drunk. Id. According to Mother, Stepfather was behaving 

like the “class clown,” and that he does not need alcohol to behave in that 
J-S38032-15

- 15 -

manner. Id. After a careful review of the record, we would not disturb the 

trial court’s findings regarding Stepfather. C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 443.

In his second issue, Father claims that the trial court was biased 

against him because it ignored, or unreasonably rejected, almost every issue 

that Father raised. Father’s Brief at 12. Father bases his claim of bias on 

the trial court’s rejection of the claims as to Stepfather. Id. at 11-12. 

Father also directs our attention to evidence regarding the dispute between 

Mother and their son, F.A.S. Id. 

Our review discloses that at the custody hearing, Mother explained 

that the incident had occurred in August 2011, when F.A.S. was seventeen 

years old, and that the trial court had addressed the incident in a prior

custody order. N.T., 8/13/14, at 45-49. Mother testified that she has since 

worked through her difficulties with F.A.S., and that they speak on the 

telephone or send text messages to each other. Id. at 107. Father did not 

present evidence disputing Mother’s testimony. The trial court opted not to 

afford any weight to the incidents that occurred during the time when the 

parties were struggling with F.A.S. Again, after a careful review of the 

record, we do not disturb the trial court’s findings. See C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 

443. 

In his third issue, Father claims that the trial court improperly 

considered the testimony of the parties’ oldest daughter, B.R.S. Father’s 

Brief at 12. Because Father presents this claim for the first time on appeal, 
J-S38032-15

- 16 -

having failed to object to B.R.S.’s testimony at the custody hearing, the 

claim is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); E.D., 33 A.3d at 78. 

Had Father preserved the issue, we, nevertheless, would have found 

that it lacks merit. It was appropriate for the trial court to consider the 

testimony of B.R.S., particularly pursuant to section 5328(a)(5), as part of 

the extended family of the Children, and section 5328(a)(6), as a sibling of 

the Children. B.R.S.’s testimony was also relevant under section 

5328(a)(16), “[a]ny other relevant factor.” 

In relation to section 5328(a)(5), (6), and (16), the trial court stated 

the following:

Mother testified that she has sisters in the area[,] and that 

she gets along well with them. Her mother also resides in this 

area. There was no testimony as to how close the [C]hildren are 

to Mother’s family members. As for Father, his parents and 

siblings reside in the area. Again, there was no testimony as to 

how close the [Children] are to their aunts and uncles on 

Father’s side, but they do see their paternal grandmother very 

often.

* * *

The three girls seem to be very close to one another and 

there was testimony that this has been the case since the time 

of the parties’ divorce. All three girls seem very in tune with 

each other’s desires and characteristics. All three girls stated 

that they would prefer to have the same custody schedule so 

that they can remain together. With specific focus on the two 

minor [C]hildren, [H.R.S.] and [A.J.S.], it is clearly in their best 

interest to remain together as they have never been separated. 

This seems most important with respect to [A.J.S.], who is 

young and looks up to her older siblings. All three girls testified 

that they are not very close to their older brother, [F.A.S.], as 

he lives primarily with Father[,] and he is not around much 

because he works alot [sic].
J-S38032-15

- 17 -

* * *

. . . The only other relevant factor that this [c]ourt believes 

should be considered is the attempts of Father to sway the 

[Children’s] preferences with regard to the custody 

arrangements. Father testified that he spoke to each of the girls 

regarding the custody matter multiple times after becoming 

aware that Mother filed the Petition to Modify. He stated that he 

cried in front of the girls[,] and that he did, in fact, tell them 

that[,] if Mother is to gain primary custody[,] he would lose his 

home and have to live with his mother. The [c]ourt is convinced 

that this was an attempt by Father to manipulate the [C]hildren 

into changing their minds regarding their preferences. As 

discussed, the [c]ourt believes that this tactic did, in fact, have 

an impact on [H.R.S.’s] preference.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 14-15. Ultimately, the trial court concluded 

that, 

[b]ased upon the consideration of the above factors, the [trial 

court] is of the opinion that it would be in the best interests of 

the [C]hildren to live primarily with Mother. Mother is clearly the 

more nurturing caregiver of the two parties. Both [H.R.S.] and 

[A.J.S.] testified that they are more comfortable with Mother. 

Mother puts more emphasis on [A.J.S.’s] school work and her 

special needs when it comes to her education. While the [trial 

court] acknowledges that [H.R.S.] stated a preference for the 

custody schedule to remain the same, the [trial court] believes 

that it is in the best interests of both girls to remain on the same 

custody schedule[,] and notes that all parties testified that 

[H.R.S.] originally exhibited a preference for Mother having 

primary custody[,] but has since changed her mind. The [trial 

court] believes that the [C]hildren will benefit from a schedule 

where Mother has custody on the majority of school days[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 15 (unnumbered). Thus, the trial court’s 

determination did not rest upon the testimony of B.R.S., alone, but on the 
J-S38032-15

- 18 -

testimony of H.R.S. and A.J.S. in relation to B.R.S.’s testimony as their 

sibling. 

Having found no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the Order of 

the trial court. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/16/2015