J-A05008-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

M.A.C.

v.

B.J.B., 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3293 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered September 20, 2017

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

No(s): C0048CV2016-11301

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

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 29, 2018

Appellant, B.J.B. (“Father”), appeals from the September 20, 2017 

Order, which granted the Petition for Custody filed by Appellee, M.A.C. 

(“Mother”), and awarded Mother primary physical custody of V.L.B. 

(“Child”).1,2 Upon careful review, we affirm.

____________________________________________

1 Although the Order is dated and time-stamped September 19, 2017, the 

Prothonotary gave notice of the order to the parties on September 20, 2017. 

Accordingly, we will refer to it as the September 20, 2017 Order. See Fischer 

v. UPMC 34 A.3d 115, 121 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that “[a] civil order is 

not considered to be entered on the docket until the prothonotary makes a 

notation on the docket of compliance with the notice requirement of Pa.R.C.P. 

236(b).”).

2

In its 9/20/17 Order the trial court incorrectly identified Father as “B.S.B.” 

The Notice of Appeal and subsequent filings identify Father as “B.J.B.” We 

have changed the caption accordingly.
J-A05008-18

- 2 -

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. Mother and 

Father are parents to 5-year-old Child. Mother and Father were never 

married, but lived together until July 2016. Mother was a stay-at-home parent 

prior to the break-up, and was Child’s primary caretaker. In June 2016, 

Mother entered a rehabilitation facility for alcohol abuse. Upon her release in 

July 2016, Father asked Mother to leave their home and Mother moved in with 

her parents. Father and Mother informally agreed to share physical custody 

of Child, who spent four nights with Mother and three nights with Father each 

week. 

Mother relapsed in December 2016 and police subsequently arrested her 

for public drunkenness. On December 12, 2016, in response to Mother’s 

behavior during her relapse, Father filed a Protection from Abuse (“PFA”)

Petition against Mother. The court granted a temporary PFA Order and 

awarded Father temporary physical custody of Child. Father later withdrew 

the PFA Petition.

On December 28, 2016, Father filed a Petition for Custody in Carbon 

County, Pennsylvania. On December 29, 2016, Mother filed the instant 

Petition for Custody in Northampton County to which Father filed Preliminary 

Objections contesting jurisdiction. On January 9, 2017, the Northampton 

court issued a temporary custody Order reverting to the previously agreed 

upon custody arrangement where Child spent four nights with Mother and 
J-A05008-18

- 3 -

three nights with Father each week. The court also ordered both parties to 

submit to weekly urine screenings. 

On February 2, 2017, the Northampton court denied Father’s 

Preliminary Objections and scheduled a custody conference. On April 28, 

2017, after a settlement conference where parties did not reach an 

agreement, the court issued a temporary Order granting primary physical 

custody to Mother, weekend visitation to Father, and shared custody during 

summer months. The Order required parents to attend co-parent counseling 

and submit to weekly random urine screens. 

On September 13, 2017, the trial court held a custody hearing. The 

court heard testimony from Mother, Mother’s mother, Mother’s stepfather, 

Mother’s fiancé, and Diana O’Brien, the president and CEO of Substance Abuse 

Screening Services. The trial court also heard testimony from Father, Father’s 

mother, and Father’s paramour. 

Mother testified that she currently lives in her mother’s home with her 

mother, her stepfather, her adult brother, and her grandmother. N.T. Trial, 

9/13/17, at 85. Child has her own bedroom in the home and Mother sleeps 

in the finished basement. Id. at 105. Mother works at Waffle House

approximately five to six days per week and the family with whom she resides 

helps to care for Child while Mother is at work. Id. at 115. Additionally, the 

family members engage Child in various recreational activities and take her 

on vacation. Id. at 60.
J-A05008-18

- 4 -

Mother testified that she has been taking Xanax for 10 years for severe 

anxiety disorder, and acknowledged a history of alcohol abuse. Id. at 89, 

127. Since January 9, 2017, Mother has submitted 23 urine samples: 3 had 

abnormal creatinine levels3 and 1 was positive for marijuana. See id. at 13-

22; Appellant Exhibit 3; Trial Court Opinion, filed 9/19/17, at 6. When asked 

about the positive drug screen, Mother testified that she unknowingly and 

unwillingly ingested a “marijuana brownie” at a picnic. Id. at 104. Mother 

testified that, since she entered rehab in July 2016, she has maintained her 

sobriety with the exception of her December 2016 relapse and the July 2017 

picnic incident. Id. at 104-105. 

Mother’s fiancé testified that Mother stays overnight with him 

approximately one or two nights a week; Child is occasionally present and 

sleeps in a separate bedroom. Id. at 77, 79. Mother and her fiancé have not 

set a wedding date, and have no immediate plans to move in together. Id.

at 72, 80. 

Mother and her fiancé both deny the presence of physical abuse in their 

relationship, but Mother recalled one instance when her fiancé accidentally 

burned her with a cigarette when he reached over her. Id. at 80-81, 85-86, 

142-43. She admitted that she exaggerated the story to make her fiancé’s 

____________________________________________

3 Elevated creatinine levels in blood serum or urine can indicate compromised 

kidney function, and may be caused by dehydration, a low blood volume, the 

consumption of a large amount of meat, or certain medications. 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/creatinine-test/about/pac20384646.
J-A05008-18

- 5 -

action seem intentional when she relayed the story to Father in order to get 

attention from Father. Id.

Father testified that he works as a youth care worker at a residential 

treatment center for adolescent males. Id. at 184. Father typically works 

weekends, but has two days off during the week. Id. at 203. Father relies 

on his mother and his paramour to aid in childcare when he is at work. Id. at 

204. 

Father owns his own home and lives by himself, although his paramour 

sleeps over approximately four nights a week. Id. at 156, 185. In Father’s 

home, Child has her own bedroom and a “fairy garden” in the backyard. Id.

at 187. Child has many similarly aged cousins that live close to Father and 

has numerous friends in Father’s neighborhood. Id. at 188. Father attends 

Child’s pediatrician and dentist appointments regularly. Id. at 200-01. 

Father’s paramour testified that she often picks up Child from Father’s 

mother’s home, transports Child to Father’s home, and watches Child at night. 

Id. at 156. Father’s paramour stated that she has no issues communicating

with Mother regarding Child’s well-being and evening schedule when providing 

childcare. Id. at 156, 158. 

On September 20, 2017, the trial court granted Mother’s Petition for 

Custody, awarding primary physical custody to Mother and visitation to Father 

two nights per week, with Mother and Father exchanging custody on a weekly 

basis during the summer. 
J-A05008-18

- 6 -

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

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

Father raises the following issues on appeal:

A. Did the trial court err in failing to conclude that [Father] be 

awarded primary physical custody based upon the statutory 

factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)?

B. Did the trial court err by limiting testimony with respect to 23 

Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2) respecting the “present and past abuse 

commited by a party or member of a party’s household,” and 

by failing to appropriately consider the evidence of record 

respecting this factor?

C. Did the trial court err in concluding from the evidence that 

[Father], [Father]’s paramour, and paternal grandmother 

would not foster a relationship between [Mother] and [Child]?

Father’s Brief at 11 (some capitalization omitted).

STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

When reviewing child custody matters, our paramount concern is the 

best interests of the child. Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 

2006). “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.” Id. (quotation and 

citation omitted). 

This Court reviews a custody determination for an abuse of discretion. 

In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). We will not find an abuse 

of discretion “merely because a reviewing court would have reached a different 
J-A05008-18

- 7 -

conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). Rather, “[a]ppellate courts will find a trial 

court abuses its discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it overrides or 

misapplies the law, or the record shows that the trial court's judgment was 

either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or 

ill will.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Further, when this Court reviews a trial court’s “best interests” analysis 

in custody matters, our scope of review is broad:

. . . we are not bound by deductions and inferences drawn by the 

trial court from the facts found, nor are we required to accept 

findings which are wholly without support in the record. On the 

other hand, our broad scope of review does not authorize us to 

nullify the fact-finding function of the trial court in order to 

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rather, we are 

bound by findings supported in the record, and may reject 

conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error 

of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of 

the trial court. Further, on the issues of credibility and weight of 

the evidence, we defer to the findings [of] the trial judge. 

Additionally, appellate interference is allowed only where it is 

found that the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown 

by the evidence of record.

Saintz, supra at 512 (quotation and citation omitted). 

THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT

The Child Custody Act (“the Custody Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321-5340, 

governs all custody proceedings commenced after January 24, 2011. E.D. v. 

M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 77 (Pa. Super. 2011). The Custody Act requires a trial court 

to consider all of the Section 5328(a) best interests factors when “ordering 
J-A05008-18

- 8 -

any form of custody.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).4 A trial court must “delineate 

the reasons for its decision when making an award of custody either on the 

____________________________________________

4 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) provides: 

(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.

(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.
J-A05008-18

- 9 -

record or in a written opinion.” S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 401 (Pa. 

Super. 2014); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(a) and (d). However, “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). 

As stated above, we review Father’s arguments particularly recognizing 

that “we are bound by findings supported in the record, and may reject 

conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are 

____________________________________________

(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. § 5328(a).
J-A05008-18

- 10 -

unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.” Saintz, 

supra at 512.

Section 5328 Child Custody Factors

In his first issue, Father claims (1) that the trial court did not properly 

evaluate the best interests factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328; and (2)

there was not sufficient evidence presented to support an award of primary 

physical custody to Mother. Father’s Brief at 29. In support, Father argues 

that the trial court placed too much weight on the Mother’s role as primary 

caretaker while failing to consider adequately Mother’s history of substance 

abuse, her unstable living arrangements, and her allegations of abuse leveled 

against her fiancé. Id. at 40. We disagree.

In its Opinion, filed simultaneously with its Custody Order, the trial court 

considered the custody factors enumerated in Section 5328, with the 

exception of Child’s preference due to her age. The trial court found that a 

majority of the factors balanced equally between Mother and Father, 

acknowledged that both were excellent parents, and opined:

This case has presented a difficult decision for the [c]ourt. By all 

accounts, all of [Child]’s physical and emotional needs are easily 

met in the households of each parent, and if the parties lived in 

greater proximity, an award of shared custody would likely be 

appropriate. Moreover, it was clear from the testimony of the 

parties and the report of their co-parenting counselor that they 

both have the best interest of their daughter at heart, they both 

provide her with loving and nurturing homes, and that each thinks 

the other is a good parent and wants the other parent to enjoy 

liberal time with [Child]. They have some difficulty 

communicating, but not greatly. Both parents clearly put [Child] 

before themselves, and she is the heart of their lives. 
J-A05008-18

- 11 -

Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/19/17, at 8. 

Nonetheless, the trial court found that several factors were in favor of 

awarding primary custody to Mother. The trial court found that Mother was 

more likely to foster a positive relationship between Father and Child, had the 

availability of extended family members within the household, and was able 

to provide consistent and stable childcare arrangements due to family support. 

Id. at 8-9. Finally, the trial court found that awarding primary custody to 

Mother, who has always been Child’s primary caretaker, would serve the need 

for stability and continuity in Child’s life. Id. Our review of the record

supports the trial court’s conclusions. 

Father cites W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323, 324 (Pa. Super. 2015), to 

support his argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it relied 

primarily on Mother’s role as Child’s primary caretaker in making its custody 

determination. In W.C.F., this Court reversed an award of primary physical 

custody to the mother and held that “the fact that father has not been primary 

custodian to date is, first, a function of mother’s unilateral unreasonable 

decisions, and second, not a basis for denying him primary custody where 

all factors point otherwise.” W.C.F., supra at 330 (emphasis added). 

W.C.F. is legally and factually distinguishable from the instant case. In 

the instant case, both parents are equally involved in Child’s life and there 

was no evidence presented that Mother made “unilateral unreasonable 

decisions” to deny Father access to Child. Most notably, unlike in W.C.F., not 

all remaining custody factors were in favor of Father. Rather, as discussed 
J-A05008-18

- 12 -

above, the trial court found that several of the custody factors were in favor 

of Mother and those findings are supported by competent evidence in the 

record. Father’s reliance on W.C.F. is, thus, misplaced.

Father also argues that the trial court failed to consider adequately 

Mother’s history of substance abuse, Child’s unstable living arrangements

while living with Mother as evidenced by Child spending nights at Mother’s 

fiancé’s home, and Mother’s allegation of physical abuse against her fiancé.5 

Our review of the record belies these claims. 

The trial court found Mother’s testimony regarding her efforts to 

maintain sobriety to be credible and opined: 

While [Father] may place greater weight on [Mother]’s past

substance abuse and psychological history than did the [trial 

court], that does not negate the fact that we clearly considered 

those issues . . . it is clear that [Mother] has maintained her 

sobriety for many months, and that she is actively working to 

better herself to be the best possible mother to [Child]. Insofar 

as [Mother] is clearly now on the right path in her own life and 

has an excellent support system in her home – a support system 

that is also an important and consistent family network for [Child] 

– we put less weight on her past behavior than we placed on 

[Child]’s need for stability and consistency in what is clearly a 

healthy, stable, and loving home with [Mother].

____________________________________________

5

In addition, Father argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider 

Mother’s “previously levied allegations of abuse against her [stepfather.]” 

Father’s Brief at 38. Father fails to identify what allegations he is referring to 

and fails to develop this argument beyond one sentence in his Brief. 

Accordingly, this argument is waived and we decline to address it. See 

Commonwealth v. Walter, 966 A.2d 560, 566 (Pa. 2009) (holding claims 

waived for failure to develop them). 
J-A05008-18

- 13 -

Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/23/17, at 2. Notably, the trial court found 

Mother’s testimony credible that, during their relationship, “Father also 

consumed alcohol to excess and smoked marijuana.” Trial Court Opinion, 

dated 9/9/17, at 7.

Moreover, despite Father’s claim to the contrary, the trial court did 

consider the fact that Child occasionally spends the night at Mother’s fiancé’s 

home, and concluded that the two have a positive relationship. See id. at 3-

4. Finally, the trial court also considered the allegation that Mother’s fiancé 

intentionally burned Mother with a cigarette, and found Mother’s testimony

that the incident was an accident, and her admission that she exaggerated

the story when relaying it to Father, to be credible. See id. at 7. 

As stated above, we defer to the findings of the trial court on issues of 

credibility and weight of the evidence. Saintz, supra at 512. Our review of 

the record supports the trial court’s findings, and, thus, we conclude that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it analyzed the Section 5328 

custody factors and determined that awarding primary physical custody of 

Child to Mother was in Child’s best interest.

Evidence of Present and Past Abuse

In Father’s second issue, he avers that the trial court erred in limiting 

testimony with respect to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2) regarding the “present and 

past abuse committed by a party or member of a party household” and by 

failing to appropriately consider the evidence regarding this factor. Father’s 

Brief at 42; Father’s 1925(b) Statement at 1.
J-A05008-18

- 14 -

Rule 1925(b) requires an appellant to “concisely identify each ruling or 

error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify 

all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). This Court may

find waiver where a Rule 1925(b) Statement is too vague. In re A.B., 63 

A.3d 345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2013). “When a court has to guess what issues an 

appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.” Id. (citation 

omitted). A 1925(b) Statement that is too vague to allow the court to identify 

the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no 1925(b) 

Statement at all. Id.

Here, the trial court was unable to address Father’s issue, stating: “we 

find that we are unable to meaningful respond to this error, insofar as [Father] 

has not specified the testimony to which he refers.” Trial Court Opinion, dated 

10/23/17, at 2. Because this issue is overly vague, and the trial court was 

unable to address it, we conclude that Father has waived this issue on appeal.

Trial Court’s Credibility Determinations

In Father’s final issue, he avers that the trial court erred when it 

concluded that Father, Father’s paramour, and Father’s mother would not 

foster a relationship between Mother and Child. Father’s Brief at 47. 

Concerning issues of credibility, we must defer to the presiding trial 

judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first hand. A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 

A.2d 32, 35-36 (Pa. Super. 2010). We will not disturb the trial court’s

conclusions unless they are “manifestly unreasonable as shown by the 
J-A05008-18

- 15 -

evidence of record.” Saintz, supra at 512. In light of our standard of review, 

we are unable to conclude that Father’s final issue has merit. 

The trial court noted that despite Father’s acknowledgment during coparent counseling that Mother was an “excellent parent,” Father and his 

witnesses “were quick to demonize Mother for her past misbehavior during 

the parties’ relationship.” Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/9/17, at 8. The trial

court further opined: 

Their concerns in this regard were not credible insofar as they had 

never before raised those concerns throughout the history of the 

case. The overall tenor of the testimony by Father, his paramour, 

and [Father’s mother] made it clear to the [trial court] that they 

would not foster a positive relationship between Mother and Child. 

Id.

The trial court also pointed to specific testimony from Father’s paramour 

and opined: “[w]hile it is not necessarily apparent from the words spoken on 

the record, the tone of voice, mannerisms, and words of [Father]’s paramour 

during her testimony made it clear to this [c]ourt that she looks upon [Mother] 

with a great deal of disdain, which led to our conclusion about her influence 

on [Child].” Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/23/17, at 3. Likewise, the trial 

court concluded that Father’s mother “harbors a great deal of negativity” 

towards Mother and once again opined that its conclusion was not only based 

on her testimony but also the trial court’s observations of her demeanor on 

the witness stand. Id. at 4. 
J-A05008-18

- 16 -

Our review of the record, giving deference to the trial court’s in-court 

observations and credibility determinations, reveals that the trial court’s 

conclusions are not manifestly unreasonable. As the record supports the trial 

court’s conclusions, Father’s final issue lacks merit. 

In conclusion, a review of the record supports the trial court’s findings 

and reveals that the court properly considered Child’s best interests when it 

granted Mother’s Petition for Custody.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/29/18