J-A02027-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

C.P. AND D.P.

v.

S.C. AND C.P.

APPEAL OF: S.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1277 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered July 18, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at 

No(s): FD-17-4317-003

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2020

Appellant, S.C. (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the July 18, 2019 order 

granting C.P. (“Paternal Grandfather”) and D.P. (“Paternal Grandmother”)

(collectively, “Paternal Grandparents”) sole physical and legal custody of C.C. 

(“Child”).1 We affirm. 

The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural background 

of this matter as follows.

Th[is] case originally came to the attention of the [trial] court 

when the Office of Children Youth and Families [(“OCYF”)] filed a 

dependency petition in January [] 2018. The petition alleged that 

[Child] was without proper parental care or control. It was alleged 

that Mother brought [Child] to a court hearing on January 19[,]

2018 and was incarcerated that day. [Child] [was] placed in the 

courthouse's daycare, and an appropriate family member could 

____________________________________________

1 Child was born in November 2016. 
J-A02027-20

- 2 -

not be located to retrieve [her]. While the Dependency Petition 

Hearing was pending, OCYF contacted [(“Father”)], and [Child] 

was placed in his care.2 Ultimately, the dependency petition was 

withdrawn, and Father was granted primary custody of [Child], as 

he appeared to be a ready, willing, and able parent.

The court did not have contact with the family again until May []

2018, at which time Mother sought custody of [Child] after her 

release from incarceration. [When Mother filed the custody 

complaint,] [she] served Father only and did not include Paternal 

Grandparents as [parties] to the custody action. Mother and

Father were ordered to participate in the Generations Program. 

Father retained primary custody of [Child] until July 28, 2018, at 

which time he was incarcerated. Prior to his incarceration, Father 

made arrangements with Paternal Grandparents to care for

[Child]. However, it was apparent from the court's interactions 

with the family that Paternal Grandparents provided daily care for 

[Child] from the time she was placed in Father's care in January 

[] 2018. Paternal Grandparents also reported that they cared for 

[Child] for extended periods of time prior to Mother's incarceration 

in January [] 2018. 

Mother failed to appear for the Generations educational seminar 

on July 14, 2018, and her petition for modification was dismissed 

on July 16[,] 2018. Mother filed a petition for reinstatement of 

her custody action and the court granted her request on 

September 12[,] 2018. On September 13[,] 2018, Paternal 

Grandparents filed a petition for special relief custody.3 Paternal 

Grandparents were granted standing and permitted to proceed in 

____________________________________________

2 Father lived in the house of Paternal Grandparents.

3 On January 29, 2020, Mother filed an Application for Relief with this Court in 

which she asserts that she was never served with Paternal Grandparents’

petition for custody and she saw it for the first time on January 29, 2020 when 

she found it on the court’s electronic docket. Appellant’s Application for Relief, 

1/29/2020, at 2. A review of the record belies Mother’s assertions. Not only 

has she been actively involved in these proceedings from the beginning —

including participating in the custody trial, filing a notice of appeal from the 

trial court’s order granting sole legal and physical custody to Paternal 

Grandparents, filing a brief and appearing for oral argument before this Court 

— but Mother also signed an acknowledgment of service of the custody 

pleading which was filed with the trial court on October 17, 2018. Accordingly, 

Mother’s Application for Relief is denied.
J-A02027-20

- 3 -

the custody action. In September [] 2018, the court ordered all 

parties to proceed through the Generations Program. Pending the 

Generations conciliation, the court entered an interim custody 

order allowing Mother periods of partial visitation with [Child] on 

the weekends. After this hearing, Mother began filing monthly 

motions before [the trial] court seeking additional periods of 

visitation. At each motion hearing, Paternal Grandparents 

expressed frustration with Mother's punctuality while transporting 

[Child] to and from visits. Th[e trial] court entered an order on 

October 10[,] 2018 allowing Mother a fifteen-minute grace period 

to pick-up or drop-off [Child]. The court granted Mother various 

additional periods of visitation including [Child’s] birthday, 

Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

On February 26[,] 2019, a custody conciliation was held to 

address Mother's petitions for modification to primary custody and 

civil contempt and Paternal Grandparents' petition for modification 

for sole custody. Mother failed to appear, and her petitions were 

dismissed. Paternal Grandparents' petition was scheduled for a 

judicial conciliation on March 26[,] 2019. At the conciliation, 

Paternal Grandparents expressed concern for Mother's care of 

[Child] during her periods of visitation. Specifically, they alleged 

that Mother had returned [Child] to them with bed bug bites and 

other various illnesses on several occasions. Paternal 

Grandparents also reported that Mother did not have adequate 

supplies for [Child] during her periods of visitation and returned 

[Child] to them wearing a maxi pad. Mother reported to Paternal 

Grandparents that she did not have diapers. Mother's tardiness 

at drop-off and pick-up times continued to be an issue as well. 

The parties could not agree to any form of shared custody and as 

such, a custody trial was scheduled for June 12[,] 2019. The 

parties appeared on that date, and the court heard testimony and 

accepted exhibits from the parties. Mother did not allege any 

physical maltreatment of [Child] by Paternal Grandparents at this 

hearing. Due to a scheduling conflict, the court was only able to 

hear [90] minutes of testimony, and the hearing was continued to 

July 2[,] 2019. Pending the second day of trial, the court ordered 

Mother to return [Child] to Paternal Grandparents by 10[:00]

[a.m.] on Sunday, June 16[,] 2019 for Father's Day. In exchange 

for shortening Mother's period of custody, the court granted her 

an extended period of visitation from June 20[,] 2019 until June 

25[,] 2019 so that she could take [Child] on vacation. On or about 

June 15[,] 2019, Mother obtained a frivolous emergency 

protection from abuse order on behalf of [Child] alleging physical 
J-A02027-20

- 4 -

maltreatment by Paternal Grandfather. Mother did not return 

[Child] to Paternal Grandparents as outlined in the June 12[,]

2019 order. Paternal Grandmother appeared before the court on 

Monday, June 17[,] 2019 to report that [Child] had not been 

returned to their care. Mother failed to appear in court in a timely 

fashion and the emergency protection from abuse order expired 

on June 17[,] 2019. [The trial] court entered an order on June 

17[,] 2019 ordering Mother to return [Child] to the care of 

Paternal Grandparents immediately. The court also suspended 

Mother's custodial periods as set forth in the October 10[,] 2018 

and June 12[,] 2019 orders. Paternal Grandmother appeared the 

following day on June 18[,] 2019 and sought assistance from the 

court in obtaining [Child] from Mother's home. On June 18[,] 

2019, [the trial] court gave the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office 

permission to forcibly remove [Child] from Mother's care if she 

was discovered at Mother's home. Members of the Allegheny 

County Sheriff's Office arrived at Mother's home a short time after 

the court order was signed and Mother refused to allow the 

deputies into her home. The deputies had to forcefully enter 

Mother's residence with their weapons drawn. Mother was 

discovered to be hiding behind a couch with [Child]. [Child] was 

returned to the care of Paternal Grandparents that day.

The parties next appeared on July 2[,] 2019 and were permitted 

to give more testimony and provide evidence to the court. 

Paternal Grandparents provided documentation to the court where 

Mother made social media posts about smoking marijuana. 

Mother denied drug use. The court ordered her to be drug 

screened that day, and she tested positive for marijuana.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/19, at 2-5 (footnote in original) (superfluous 

capitalization omitted). 

On July 18, 2019, the trial court issued an order granting Paternal 

Grandparents sole physical and legal custody of Child. Trial Court Order, 

7/18/19, at 1. The trial court also granted Mother “partial periods of custody 

on the first and third weekends of the month.” Id. Mother filed a notice of 

appeal on August 16, 2019, without including a concise statement. See
J-A02027-20

- 5 -

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). On August 19, 2019, the trial court issued an order 

directing Mother to file a concise statement of matters complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925 within 21 days of its order. Trial Court 

Order, 8/19/19, at 1. Mother filed her Rule 1925 statement on September 

13, 2019, four days beyond the court-ordered 21-day period.

Preliminarily, we address Mother’s failure to comply with two provisions

of Pa.R.A.P. 1925. First, Mother failed to file a concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal contemporaneously with her notice of appeal as 

required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). This renders Mother’s notice of appeal 

defective. See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding 

that an appellant’s failure to file a simultaneous concise statement and notice 

of appeal violates Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(2) and 1925(a)(2) and, as such, is 

defective). K.T.E.L., however, declined to adopt a per se rule requiring 

automatic quashal or dismissal of children fast track cases for such a failure. 

Id. Instead, it held that the disposition must be “decided on a case-by-case 

basis.” Id. Accordingly, because Rules 905(a)(2) and 1925(a)(2) are 

“procedural, not jurisdictional,” we decline to dismiss Mother’s appeal on this 

basis. Id. 

Second, Mother failed to timely comply with the trial court’s August 19, 

2019 order directing her to file a Rule 1925(b) statement within 21 days. This

failure may “constitute[] waiver of all objections to the order, ruling, or other 

matter[s] complained of on appeal.” J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904, 908 (Pa. 

Super. 2010) (distinguishing the effect of failing to file a contemporaneous 
J-A02027-20

- 6 -

notice of appeal and concise statement and the failure to timely comply with 

the trial court’s order). “In a civil case,” however, “Rule 1925(b) implicates 

the notice procedure set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 236.” J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d at 

908. Thus, before we may conclude that Mother waived her claims, we must 

determine whether the following procedural steps were adhered to:

(1) the court must order the Rule 1925(b) statement; (2) the 

order must be filed with the prothonotary; (3) upon receipt of an 

order from a judge, the prothonotary must immediately docket 

the order and record in the docket the date it was made; and (4) 

the prothonotary must furnish a copy of the order to each party 

or attorney and must record in the docket the giving of the notice. 

Id. (citation omitted). “If any one of these procedural steps is missing, the 

appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) will not result in waiver of the 

issues raised.” Id. 

Herein, the certified docket reveals that the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) 

order was filed with the prothonotary on August 19, 2019. That same day, 

the prothonotary entered the order on the docket and recorded the date it

was issued. The prothonotary, however, did not record the date that it served 

the Rule 1925(b) order upon Mother. As such, we are disinclined to conclude

that Mother waived her claims for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b). 

Accordingly, we will address the issues raised by Mother on appeal.

Mother raises the following issues on appeal: 

I. [Whether the trial court erred by holding that Paternal 

Grandparents had standing to pursue a custody action?]
J-A02027-20

- 7 -

II. [Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting 

Paternal Grandparents sole physical and legal custody of 

Child?]

See generally Mother’s Brief at *9-12 (Un-paginated).4

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 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).

In Mother’s first issue, she argues that Paternal Grandparents lacked 

standing to sue for custody. The trial court held that Paternal Grandparents 

____________________________________________

4 Currently, Mother raises 13 issues on appeal. See Mother’s Brief at *9-12 

(Un-paginated). These claims, however, are different than those raised by 

Mother in her 1925(b) statement. See Mother’s 1925(b) Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal, 9/13/19, at 1-2. Moreover, in Mother’s appellate 

brief, she only develops one issue. See Mother’s Brief at *31 (Un-paginated). 

Because of these errors, we could hold that Mother waived her claims on 

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[I]ssues not included in the [Rule 

1925(b) s]tatement ... are waived.”); see also Commonwealth v. Roche,

153 A.3d 1063, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“The failure to properly develop a 

claim renders an issue waived.”). This Court, however, is permitted to 

“liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant.” Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 896 A.2d 523, 534 (Pa. 2006). Accordingly, upon review of the 

trial court’s opinion, we conclude that the trial court addressed the substance 

of Mother’s claims and, as such, we will consider the issues we identified 

above. 
J-A02027-20

- 8 -

had standing to pursue custody of Child under the doctrine of in loco parentis. 

Upon review, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion. 

Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324, if a person “stands in loco parentis to 

the child,” he or she has standing to “file an action under this chapter for any 

form of physical custody or legal custody. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324. In Peters 

v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705, 710 (Pa. 2005), our Supreme Court outlined the 

relevant principles as follows:

The term in loco parentis literally means “in the place of a parent.” 

The phrase “in loco parentis” refers to a person who puts 

oneself [sic] in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming 

the obligations incident to the parental relationship without 

going through the formality of a legal adoption. The status 

of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption 

of a parental status, and, second, the discharge of parental 

duties. ... The rights and liabilities arising out of an in loco 

parentis relationship are, as the words imply, exactly the 

same as between parent and child.

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Herein, the custody trial began on June 12, 2019. Prior to its 

commencement, the following exchange occurred. 

[Trial court]: Grandfather, when [Child] was placed with your 

son[,] who is [Father], he was residing in your home; correct?

[Paternal Grandfather]: Yes. 

[Trial court]: When was that, approximately? What year and 

date?

[Paternal Grandfather]: My son, he [has] been living with me 

since [Child] was born. He [has] been here [from] 2015 until 

[three weeks before the June 12, 2019 hearing].

***
J-A02027-20

- 9 -

[Trial court]: [When Father was living with you] was he working 

or contributing to the household bills or any expenses related to 

the care of [Child]?

[Paternal Grandfather]: No. 

[Trial court]: D[id] you have an agreement or an understanding 

about who was going to be providing primary care for [Child]?

[Paternal Grandfather]: [Father] was supposed to, but it 

always fell back on me and my wife.

[Trial court]: Even though you did [not] have an actual 

agreement, you and your wife were pretty much the primary 

caretakers?

[Paternal Grandfather]: Yes. 

[Trial court]: What was [Father’s] involvement?

[Paternal Grandfather]: Little.

[Trial court]: Tell me what you and your wife were actually doing 

for the care of [Child] versus what [Father] was doing.

[Paternal Grandfather]: Me and my wife, we pay for her day 

care five days a week. [We] pitch in and get [Child’s] hair done

every two weeks.

[Paternal Grandmother]: Clothes.

[Paternal Grandfather]: Clothes. She [will] get clothes one 

week or I [will] get clothes on my pay day week. We just make 

sure she [is] kept nice.

[Trial court]: And you bought all the food?

[Paternal Grandfather]: We bought food. I took her back and 

forth to get her shots, dental, anything that had to do with -- she 

[has] been fighting bed bugs at [Mother’s] house. I got paperwork 

showing that she had pink eye on several occasions from 

[Mother’s] house and I took her -- me and my wife took her to the 

doctors or the emergency room. 

[Trial court]: So [Father] did [not] provide much care at all?

[Paternal Grandfather]: No. 

[Trial court]: How about [Mother]?
J-A02027-20

- 10 -

[Paternal Grandfather]: None. We have [not] gotten anything 

from her. We never asked her for anything. Even if we were to 

ask, we probably would [not] have got it, because she can[not] 

even get [Child] home on the day she [is] supposed to bring her 

back to us. So I [am] picking [Child] up because she could [not] 

even drop [Child] off.

[Trial court]: So [Mother] was [not] involved in taking [Child] 

for her medical appointments or getting her hair done or buying 

her clothes or anything like that?

[Paternal Grandfather]: Nothing like that. 

N.T. Custody Trial, 6/12/19, at 4-6. Based upon this exchange, the trial court 

concluded that the Paternal Grandparents stood in loco parentis to Child. Id.

at 7. Upon review, we agree with the trial court’s determination. Paternal 

Grandfather’s testimony established that they continuously cared for Child’s 

needs and discharged all parental duties since Mother’s incarceration in 

January 2018, and Father’s subsequent incarceration in July 2018. 

Accordingly, Mother’s claim that Paternal Grandparents lack standing is 

meritless. 

Next, Mother claims that the trial court erred in granting Paternal 

Grandparents sole physical and legal custody of Child. We disagree. 

“The paramount concern in child custody cases is the best interests of 

the child.” C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 909 (Pa. 2018). “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 

spiritual well-being.” M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 112 (Pa. Super. 2017). 
J-A02027-20

- 11 -

“The specific factors that a court must consider are listed in 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 5328(a)(1)-(16).5 Id. at 112. 

____________________________________________

5 The factors listed in 23 Pa. C.S. § 5328(a)(1)-(16) are as follows. 

(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) (relating to 

consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective 

services).

(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.
J-A02027-20

- 12 -

Further: 

The parent has a prima facie right to custody, “which will be 

forfeited only if convincing reasons appear that the child's best 

interest will be served by an award to the third party.” V.B. v. 

J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2012), quoting Charles 

v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa. 2000). Section 5327 of the 

Custody Act pertains to cases “concerning primary physical 

custody” and provides that, “[i]n any action regarding the custody 

of the child between a parent of the child and a nonparent, there 

shall be a presumption that custody shall be awarded to the 

parent. The presumption in favor of the parent may be rebutted 

by clear and convincing evidence.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5327(b). This 

Court has defined clear and convincing evidence “as presenting 

evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without 

hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” M.J.S. v. 

B.B. v. B.B., 172 A.3d 651, 660 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, “even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary 

scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the biological parents' side.” 

V.B., 55 A.3d at 1199, quoting Charles, 744 A.2d at 1258. When 

making a decision to award primary physical custody to a 

nonparent, the trial court must “hear all evidence relevant to the 

____________________________________________

(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.

Id. 
J-A02027-20

- 13 -

child's best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on 

behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up 

to even, and down on the third party's side.” Id., quoting

McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2000).

R.L. v. M.A., 209 A.3d 391, 395-396 (Pa. Super. 2019). 

In its July 18, 2019 order and opinion, the trial court discussed each of 

the Section 5328(a) factors as follows. 

I. Which party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the child and 

another party? The [Paternal Grandparents] have continued to 

make concessions for [Child] to attend her custodial periods with 

[Mother]. In addition, Father often stays in the home of [Paternal 

Grandparents] and they do not restrict contact within their home. 

Mother has exhibited an unwillingness to foster the relationship 

between [Child] and [Paternal] Grandparents by filing false 

protection orders against them alleging physical abuse. 

II. Is there, or has there been in the past, abuse committed by 

a party or a member of the party’s household? This is not a 

factor as it relates to Mother or [Paternal Grandparents]. 

Although it should be noted that Mother was often exercising her 

custodial periods at Maternal Grandfather’s home. Maternal 

Grandfather had previously been investigated by OCYF for using 

harsh physical discipline on [Child’s] siblings. During the 

pendency of the custody trial, Maternal Grandfather [was] 

arrested and charged criminally for using extreme physical 

discipline on [Child’s] older brother. 

III. What are the paternal duties performed by each party on 

behalf of the child? [Paternal Grandparents] provide for all 

[Child’s] daily needs. They have enrolled [Child] in daycare and 

ensure that all of her medical needs are met. They provide 

clothing, food[,] and shelter, and act in a paternal capacity on a 

day[-]to[-]day basis. Neither Mother nor Father attend medical 

appointments or provide daily care for [Child]. Mother does not 

know the name of [Child’s] pediatrician. Mother does provide 

shelter and food for the periods she exercises custody[,] but does 

not transport [Child] to daycare or any medical appointments.

 
J-A02027-20

- 14 -

IV. Which party can best provide for stability and continuity in 

the child’s education, family life and community life? 

[Paternal] Grandparents [act] as constant support for [Child]. 

Both are invested in [Child’s] life and have demonstrated an ability 

to provide stability in all aspects of [Child’s] life. [Child] is only in 

daycare[,] so education is not a factor. Mother’s prior 

incarceration as well as her marijuana use brings into question her 

stability to provide long term care for [Child]. 

V. The availability of the extended family. [Paternal 

Grandparents] have allowed [Child] to [] contact [] extended 

family[,] noting that she often plays with cousins and other young 

relatives. Mother reports that [Child] is in contact with her siblings 

and maternal relatives. 

VI. The child’s sibling relationships. [Paternal Grandparents] do 

not interfere[] with Mother’s custodial periods. Mother reports 

that her two other children see [Child] during [Mother’s] custodial 

periods. 

VII. The well-reasoned preference of the child based on the 

child’s maturity and judgment. The child is two and [one] half 

years old. This is not a factor.

VIII. The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other. 

This is not a factor. Although it should be noted that Mother 

falsely accused [Paternal] Grandfather of physical abuse. This 

factor will be a future concern. 

IX. Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, 

consistent, and nurturing relationship with the child 

adequate for the child’s emotional needs? [Paternal 

Grandparents]. 

X. Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, 

emotional, and educational development, and special 

needs of the child? [Paternal Grandparents].

XI. The proximity of the residences of the parties. The parties 

[] live a significant distance from [each other]. Mother reports to 

having to take multiple buses to transport [Child] to and from 

[Paternal Grandparents’] home. 
J-A02027-20

- 15 -

XII. Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability of 

the parties to cooperate with one another. [Paternal 

Grandparents] have arranged their work schedules to ensure that 

[Child] is in daycare a few days a week. [Paternal Grandparents] 

are able to coordinate between themselves to ensure [Child] is on 

a daily routine and all her needs are being met. Mother claims 

that she is employed but that is relatively new for her. [Mother] 

is available on a day[-]to[-]day basis to care for [Child]. 

Communication is difficult for both parties. [Paternal 

Grandparents] tend to be slightly more cooperative than Mother 

in this regard.

XIII. The level of conflict and the willingness and ability of the 

parties to cooperate with one another. Mother can be 

vindictive at times and has created unnecessary conflict with 

[Paternal Grandparents]. Mother’s frustration with Father has 

caused her to target [Paternal Grandparents] on many occasions. 

[Paternal Grandparents] have grown increasingly frustrated with 

Mother which has also caused friction in the relationship. 

However, [the trial court] believes that with a little patience, 

[Paternal Grandparents] can successfully communicate with 

Mother. 

XIV. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or a member 

of the party’s household. Mother has a history of [m]arijuana 

use. Father has a history of drug-related arrests and also a history 

of marijuana use. 

XV. The mental and physical condition of a party or a member 

of a party’s household. This is not a factor.

XVI. Any other relevant factors. None. 

Trial Court Order and Opinion, 7/18/19, at *4-8 (Un-paginated). Based upon 

its assessment of the aforementioned factors, the trial court determined that 

Paternal Grandparents, by the presentation of clear and convincing evidence, 

rebutted the presumption that Mother should be awarded custody. See 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5327(b); see also Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/19, at 9. Herein, 

we discern no abuse of discretion, as the evidence presented supports the trial 
J-A02027-20

- 16 -

court’s custody award to Paternal Grandparents. We therefore affirm the trial 

court’s July 18, 2019 order granting Parental Grandparents sole legal and 

physical custody.6

Order affirmed. Appellant’s application for relief is denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/19/2020

____________________________________________

6

In its July 18, 2019 order, the trial court also granted Mother “partial periods 

of custody on the first and third weekends of the month.” Trial Court Order, 

7/18/19, at 1. At oral argument, we inquired as to whether Mother was 

exercising her custodial rights. Mother indicted that she was not. As stated 

during oral argument, we encourage Mother to comply with the trial court’s 

order.