J
- A04045
- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 E.R., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. D.D., Appellant No. 1505 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered August 6 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Civil Division at No(s): 2007
- 673
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., and SHOGAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 2, 2016 Appellant, D.D. (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County in this child custody matter, in which E.R. (“Father”) received additional physical custody of the parties’ daughter, P.E.R. (“Child”). We affirm. We summarize the history of this case as follows. Mother and Father were married on October of 2005 and separated in May of 2007, when Mother was several months pregnant with Child. Child was born in January of 2008. Father then filed for visitation. Mother agreed to the visitation and the parties eventually divorced. Father has since remarried. Mother resides in Emporium, Pennsylvania, and Father lives in St. Marys, Pennsylvania. In March of 2011, the trial court entered a custody orde r directing that Mother would have physical custody of Child (then three years old) fromJ
- A04045
- 16

- 2
-

10:00 a.m. on Monday until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, and Father would have physical custody of Child from 12:00 p.m. on Thursday until 10:00 a.m. on Monday. On November 30, 2012, Father filed a petition to modify custody. On March 12, 2013, the parties stipulated to the entry of a court order setting out in detail the periods of custody each parent would receive. 1 Although the basic weekly time frame for custody was not altered by the trial court’s order, it did set forth greater detail regarding custody for vacations and holidays, and provisions for travel and transportation. Paragraph six of the court order provided as follows: “6. The parties agre e that [Child] shall attend the St. Marys Area School District commencing in kindergarten and Mother will relocate to St. Marys Area School District.” Custody Order, 3/12/13, at 9. On October 14, 2014, Mother filed a pro se petition to modify custody in which she sought primary physical custody of Child and permission to relocate Child to an Emporium school in Cameron County. In her petition, Mother alleged that she did not have the financial capacity to move to St. Marys. Petition to Modify Custody, 10 /14/14, at 2. In addition, in paragraph four of her pro se petition, Mother stated the following: “4. [Mother] has been driving [Child] to and fro[m] school daily and is under financial strain to continue to afford to drive this far daily[.]” Id
.

____________________________________________ 1 Both parties were represented by counsel at the time the stipulation was accepted by the trial court and reduced to an order.J
- A04045
- 16

- 3
-

The pa rties participated in court
- ordered custody evaluations. The matter eventually proceeded to a custody hearing before the Honorable Richard A. Masson, President Judge of Elk County, on June 23, 2015. On August 6, 2015, the trial court entered an order mod ifying physical custody in favor of Father and keeping Child in her current school district. On August 11, 2015, the trial court authored a detailed opinion setting forth its general findings of fact and its statutory
- factor findings. Mother filed this p ro se appeal on September 2, 2015. The trial court did not direct Mother to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on September 25, 2015. Prior to discussing the substantive issues raised by Mother on appea l, we first consider Father’s contention that Mother’s appeal should be quashed or dismissed because of Mother’s failure to comply with provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to the filing of the notice of appeal in family fas t track cases. Father’s Brief at 4
- 5. We have reviewed the record before us and observe that Mother has failed to fully comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, as alleged. 2 Although this Court may dismiss or quash an appeal based upon an

____________________________________________ 2 Specifically, it has been alleged that Mother’s appeal failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 904(a) (relating to the proper form of the notice of appeal) and (f) (explaining the notice of appeal should advise the appellate court that the appeal is a children’s fast track), and Pa.R.A.P. 906(a) (relating to service of notice of appeal).J
- A04045
- 16

- 4
-

appellant’s failure to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, because her violations have not hampered the presentation of the appeal to this Court, and we are able to discern the issues raised by Mother on appeal, we decline to dismiss or quash in this instance. In re J.F. , 27 A.3d 1017, 1019
- 1020 (Pa. Super. 2011). See also Wilkins v. Marsico , 903 A.2d 1281, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deciding issues raised on appeal by pro se appellant because, “[d]espite the numerous defects in his bri ef, we are able to identify [a]ppellant’s issues”). Thus, we will proceed with our review. In her pro se brief, Mother presents the following issues for our review, which we reproduce verbatim: 1. Whether or not the trial committed an error in law and or abused its discretion by taking the appellants custody time away when even the father wanted to keep the previous order the same? 2. Whether or not the trial committed an error in law or abused its discretion by making finding of facts that was contrary to the sufficient evidence or testimony presented? 3. Whether or not the trial committed an error in law or abused its discretion by ignoring the findings and report by Daniel Keysor, the clinica l custody evaluator and not having him present in court but allowing the plaintiff to argue the report and aluding to a prior relationship between the appellant and the evaluator? 4. Whether or not the trial committed an error in law or abused its discret ion by not giving the proper weight to all thje factors that are in the best interest of the child? 5. Whether or not the trial made an error in law or abused its discretion by giving more time to the father or appellee after he admitted in court to using alcohol with methadone and Percocet, and the evaluator finding an addiction?J
- A04045
- 16

- 5
-

Mother’s Brief at 4. Initially, we observe that Mother’s pro se brief fails to conform to multiple rules of appellate procedure pertaining to the construction of appellate brie fs. In particular, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 addresses the argument section of appellate briefs and provides, in part, as follows: Rule 2119. Argument (a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are que stions to be argued; and shall have...such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Estate of Haiko v. McGinley , 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002). “Appellate arguments whi ch fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived. Arguments not appropriately developed include those where the party has failed to cite any authority in support of a contention.” L ackner v. Glosser , 892 A.2d 21, 29
- 30 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted). This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Irwin Union National Bank and Trust Company v. Famous and Famous and ATL Ventures , 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007)).J
- A04045
- 16

- 6
-

Although Mother lists a total of five issues in her statement of the questions presented, we observe that the argument portion of Mother’s brief is not divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued because the argument portion is not divided into any distinctive segments. Mo ther’s Brief at 9
- 13. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the argument portion of Mother’s brief does not contain meaningful discussion of relevant legal authority. Id . at 10
- 13. Rather, the argument section of Mother’s brief consists of general st atements as she sees the facts of this case and lacks any legal discussion or analysis. This lack of analysis hinders meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, because Mother’s arguments on her issues fail to set forth any meaningful discussion of releva nt legal authority, we could conclude that her issues are waived. However, we decline to do so in this instance and we will proceed with a guarded analysis of Mother’s overarching claim of trial court error. Issues one, two, four, and five presented by M other essentially address the concerns that the trial court failed to properly weigh the evidence and apply the statutory factors in making its custody determination. Because she has presented these issues in a single argument section of her brief, we lik ewise address her claims regarding these issues in a single discussion. At the outset, we observe that, as the custody hearing in this matter was held on June 23, 2015, the Child Custody Act (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. §§J
- A04045
- 16

- 7
-

5321 to 5340, is applicable. See C.R .F. v. S.E.F. , 45 A.3d 441, 445 (Pa. Super. 2012) (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). In custody cases, our standard of review i s 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 indep endent 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 deduc tions 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 ar e unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court. C.R.F. , 45 A.3d at 443 (citation omitted). We have stated: [T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nat ure 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). Moreover, i n M.A.T. v. G.S.T. , 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) ( en banc ), we stated the following regarding an abuse of discretion standard:J
- A04045
- 16

- 8
- Although we are given a broad power of review, we are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence o f record, discretion is abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support the court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence. Id. at 18
- 19 (quotation an d citations omitted). With any custody case decided under the Act, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5328, 5338. Section 5338 provides that, upon petition, a trial court may modify a custody order if it serves the be st interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338. 3

____________________________________________ 3 Section 5323 of the Act provides for the following types of custody awards: (a) Types of a ward. — After considering the factors set forth in section 5328 (relating to factors to consider when awarding custody), the court may award any of the following types of custody if it is in the best interest of the child: (1) Shared physical custody. (2) Primary physical custody. (3) Partial physical custody. (4) Sole physical custody. (5) Supervised physical custody. (6) Shared legal custody. (7) Sole legal custody. (Footnote Continued Next Page)J
- A04045
- 16

- 9
-

Section 5328(a) sets forth the best
- interest factors that the trial court must consider. E.D. v. M.P. , 33 A.3d 73, 80
- 81 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). Specifically, section 5328(a) of the Act provides as follows: § 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 househol d, 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 consider ation 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.

(Footnote Continued)

_______________________ 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(a).J
- A04045
- 16

- 10
- (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 p arty 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 appropri ate 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 i nability 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. § 5 328(a). 4

____________________________________________ 4 Effective January 1, 2014, the statute was amended to includ e an additional factor at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2.1), providing for consideration of child abuse and involvement with child protective services. Although (Footnote Continued Next Page)J
- A04045
- 16

- 11
-

Mother argues that the trial court erred in failing to properly consider various facts in reaching its custody decision and in weighing the evidence presented. Mother’s Brief at 10
- 13. In a rambling fashion Mother contends that the trial court failed to consider testimony about how well she cares for Child, how she takes Child to church, the bond that Mother has with Child, Father’s admission to taking prescription drugs and drinking alcohol, and Father’s alleged lying to make himself appear as a better parent. Id
. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the certified record, the relevant law, and the opinion filed by the trial court on August 11, 2015. It is our conclusion that the trial court thoroughly considered the facts as provided at the custody hearing a nd fully considered the statutory factors required pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/15. 5 Thus, the trial court adequately considered the favorable relationship and bond that exists between Mother and Child and the negative aspe cts (Footnote Continued)

_______________________ applicable at the time of the custody hearings in this matter, there was no evidence that would have r equired the trial court’s consideration of this factor.
5 We note that it appears that the trial court inadvertently failed to list the fourth factor in its opinion dated August 11, 2015. Said factor asks the trial court to consider “[t]he need for stabi lity and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.” Although the trial court did not enumerate factor four in its opinion, it did address the substance of the factor in its decision. Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/15, at 11
- 12. Hen ce, we are satisfied that the trial court adequately considered factor four in making its custody determination.J
- A04045
- 16

- 12
-

pertinent to Father as alleged by Mother. Likewise, our review reflects that the trial court contemplated the favorable aspects of Father’s relationship and contact with Child, and the negative aspects pertinent to Mother. As the trial court effectiv ely concluded, “Despite the want of substantial cogent and compelling evidence, both parents are undoubtedly positive parental forces in [Child’s] life and are expected to continue to promote her best interest in the future by continuing to maintaining [si c] constant contact with her.” Id
. at 13. Hence, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in reaching its decision to have Child remain at her school in St. Marys School District and in altering the custody arrangement by granting Father custody during the school week. Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s thorough analysis of the statutory custody factors as presented in its opinion of August 11, 2015, and we conclude that Mother’s contrary claims lack merit. 6 In issue number th ree, Mother argues that the trial court erred in failing to have Daniel Kysor, the licensed psychologist who prepared a report for the trial court, present at the custody hearing. Mother’s Brief at 10. Essentially, Mother asserts that because Mr. Kysor w as not present at the custody hearing, the trial court may have failed to properly consider his recommendations.

____________________________________________ 6 The parties are directed to attach a redacted copy of the August 11, 2015 opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.J
- A04045
- 16

- 13
-

It is accepted that under Pa.R.C.P. 234.1, a party may subpoena another person to attend a hearing. Furthermore, it is axiomatic that a party must make a timely and specific objection to a procedure in order to preserve the issue for appellate review; otherwise, the party’s failure to object results in waiver of the claim. M.O. v. J.T.R. , 85 A.3d 1058, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Fillmore v . Hill , 665 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 1995); Smith v. Smith , 637 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993)). Here, our review of the record reflects that neither party sought to subpoena Mr. Kysor to ensure his presence at the custody hearing. In addition, our review reveal s that the trial court accepted Mr. Kysor’s report into evidence without objection from either party. Specifically, the trial court stated the following when it admitted Mr. Kysor’s report into evidence: THE COURT: It will be admitted as Court Exhibit 1. There was no objection lodged by either party to the admissibility of Mr. Kysor’s summary or the results of his evaluation. So, that will be marked as Court Exhibit 1 and admitted. N.T., 6/23/15, at 9. If Mother wanted to challenge the admission of the report and lack of Mr. Kysor’s presence at the hearing, she should have done so at the custody hearing. Thus, Mother’s failure to object to the admission of the report, even though Mr. Kysor was not pre sent at the hearing, results in waiver of any challenge to its admissibility and its consideration by the trial court. Although not raised in her list of issues in the statement of questions presented portion of her appellate brief, Mother also argues tha t the trialJ
- A04045
- 16

- 14
-

judge should have recused himself from this case. Mother’s Brief at 11. Mother alleges that she previously appeared before the same trial judge in criminal matters in 2007
- 2008 and contends that the judge was not impartial in this custody mat ter. Id
. Regarding challenges to the trial court’s authority and suggestions that recusal was appropriate, we have stated the following:

It is the duty of the party asserting disqualification to file the petition in a timely fashion. Rizzo v. Haines , 5 55 A.2d 58, 70 (Pa. 1989). A recusal motion that is not timely filed will be denied. Id . “It is well
- settled that a party seeking recusal or disqualification must raise the objection at the earliest possible moment , or that party will suffer the consequ ence of being time barred.” Commonwealth v. Stafford , 749 A.2d 489, 501 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, it is an appellant’s obligation to demonstrate which appellate issues were preserved for revi ew. Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), 2119(e). Coulter v. Ramsden , 94 A.3d 1080, 1089 (Pa. Super. 2013). Our review of the certified record reflects that Mother failed to seek disqualification of President Judge Masson at any time prior to this appeal. Likewise, Moth er has failed to demonstrate where she has preserved this issue for appellate review. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that this issue is waived. Order affirmed.J
- A04045
- 16

- 15
-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/2/2016P- W. S of the First Presbyterian Church of Emporium, Pennsylvania; maternal

grandmother 

## H9JDIIIIJ, and paternal stepmother SC 

## Rtllf. Documentary evidence was also introduced in the nature of the custody evaluations and bonding assessments conducted by licensed psychologist Daniel Kysor, school rankings for South St. Marys Elementary School and Woodland Elementary School, P_.,s final report card for 2014-15 and an internet article C. ~; Pastor hearing consisted of the testimony of plaintiff 

## 1*Rtml; defendant D Pending before the Court is the pro se petition to modify custody filed by defendant, 

# I

D • . • D 

# a 2 (formerly known as D

. R~ on October 14, 2014. In her petition, 

# I defendant has sought to modify the custody provisions set forth in the March 11, 2013 Order of! C~urt which adopted and approved the. Febru~y 7, ~013 stipulation entered into by the parties ' I with regard to the custody of the subject mmor child, P~E-- age 7 , bo rn I JanuaryW, 2008. The February 7, 2013 stipulation included provisions for the parties' equal 

# I sharing of legal and physical custody and the stipulation specifically referenced that 

## U J j ! would attend school in the St. Marys Area School District and that defendant would relocate to
I the St. Marys Area School District. Moreover, both parents were represented by counsel when the stipulation was entered. 

# I i j At the time of the June 23, 3015 hearing conducted on the modification petition, plaintiff ] 

# Ftlf ~, appeared and was represented by Attorney Thomas G.G. Coppolo, and defendant 

## I911 

## Diii (f/k/a DQ 

### Rdll) appeared pro se. The evidence introduced at time of 

# l 

# I

'1 CIVIL COUNTYBRANCH-ELK

NO. 2007-673 Ellll4ml 

## *

Plaintiff 

## *

* vs. 

## *

* (f/k/a~ 

## *

* Defendant 

## * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE FIFTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Circulated 04/21/2016 03:17 PM2 M oth e r ~ d f

ath e r w ; r e marri ed o n O c tob e r 2 8 , 2 qo s , ao. d "V e re; di vorce d b y d ec r ee da ted Jun e 4 , 2 0 0 9. As 

### P119 wa s b o rn o n J a nu ary . 2 0 0 8 , s h e was b o rn in w edl ock. 

# I
Fo ll owing th e p artie s ' d iv or ce , fath e r marri e d 

### S F · R ~ w ith w h o m h e h as tw o c hildren , t w in s 

## s .. ~ ~nd S 

# i ~ . both ag e 7

. Mo th er e s t ab li s h e d a 

# I l o n g -t erm r e l a t io n s hip with 

## i:e S

.. , w h o co h abi tate d with h er from t im e - t o -ti me o v e r 

# I



# . . I

. '\.:l: ~ / atp s of the Parties ti

- ~ ..c Pl ai nt iff 

## E9..rulll 1 ( h e re aft er "fathe r ") an d D 

## Dtllllll (forme rl y Rlllf) ( h e re afte r "m o th e r" ) , are th e n attyaJ p ~ e~ s o f th e s ubje ct min o r c hi ld, 

### :R1' •• 1 

### " ) ~ -., S · 

### F INDINGS OF FACT I 

# · I I n a ssess in g th e evidenc e pr ese nt e d during th e h earing h e ld o n the p en din g pe ti tion t o m odify, th e C ourt h a s directed its focu s up o n the b es t inter es~ ~ ~~

# fJJC J 

# , Ftmll~. In the p ro cess 

## of ) ev alu a t ing th e ev i de n ce, the Co urt h a d th e oppo rtuni t y to vie w the de m eanor an d I
' ' "' "' co unt e n a nc e of the parties, to d e termine th e cr e dib ility o f al l witn ess, and to we i gh th e evi d rp,c , ~ al l o f w hich h as be en dul y co n s id ere d. T h e C ourt according l y en t er s the fo ll owi n g gen e ral finding s pur s uant t o Pa

. R

. C. P

. 1 92 0

. 5 2

. i 1 · I ! 

### DISCUS SI ON 

# I I l I 

## II 

# II ' • 

# i 

# I I i

. Sect i on 5338 o f the C hild C u s tod y A c t , 23 Pa. C.S.A. 5 321

- 53 4 0, provide s that u p o n 

# I pe~ti o f , '- tr i al f ourt m ay mo d i fy a cu s tod y order if it s erv es th e be s t inter es t s of th e · chil d

. " Th e 1 best inte r~sts s tand ar d , decid e d on a c ase - b y - ca se b as is, c ons id e r s al l fa c to r s th at l eg it imate l y 

### 1 1 h a v e an e ffe c t upon th e child ' s ph ys i c al , in te ll ec tual , mor al , and spir itual we ll

- b e in g." Saintz v . 

# i Rin r r '. 90 ; A f d 50 f, 512 

# <t 

# =: 200 6) (c i tin g A rn o ld v . A rno ld, 

### 8_47 A

. 2d 

### 6 74, 6 77 (Pa

. 

# I 1 1 Su pe r. 2 ~04))

. · T he Co urt mu s t de te rmine " th e b es t in te r e st s of the c hil d b y co n s id erin g a ll 

### !
r e levan t fact o r s, givin g wei gh ted con s idera t i o n to th o se fa c t o r s which e ffec t th e saf e ty o f the 

# I

c hild , " and mu s t c on s id er the st atut or il y -de fine d fa cto r s se t fo rth a t 23 P a.C.S. A. 532 8 (a). J.R
. M 

# !

v . J.E. A. 33 A.3 d 6

47, 6 5 2 ( P a. S up e r

. 2 011 )

. The paramount c o n ce rn i s th e b e st i n t eres t s of the 

# I

s ubj ec t m i n or child and all o ther c o n s ider a ti o ns ar e s ub o r d ina t e t o th e ch ild's best i nte re s t s , . incLudi ~~ - ~ ¥,l~~ rest s of the a dults wh o 

## i ~Y ~e ~ ies to th e ac ti o n . J ackson v . B e ck, 858 A. 2 d 12 50 (Pa. Sup e r

. 2004 ).3 

# ! t 

### I 

## I an approximate three-year period until the relationship ended in March 2015, following 

# I ! which S. established a residence in Florida. 

# ! 2. Parties ' Residences 

# I

Father owns the house at .Walnut S tr eet, St. Marys, Pennsyl v ania, where he ,! his current wife, 

## C £ R

.. , his step-son 

## CIIII B •• age 10, the twin children of 

# I father and S 

## Ra9, $ and 

## Et9 R9I', both age 7 , and 

### 1 live. The 

# I hous e is a two-story residence with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a d i ning room, living 

## I room, playroom , and laundry on a 100 x 50 foot lot. i Mother rents a 2-bedroom trailer at .East 2 n d Street, Emporium, Pennsylvania , 

## I where she lives with Pllllltwhen mother maintains custody of her daughter. Until March 

## I 2015, mother's boyfriend, 

### E8 

# S-, also lived at the residence. ~was described as a handyman who received disability benefits. He and mother were involved in a long-term 

# I relationship lasting some three years, which ended when, according to mother, she 1 discover e d that 

# s• was abusing drugs and he moved to Florida. 

# I l Despite mother ' s assertion that she keeps a clean household and father's 

## l household is in disarray, her infrequent and sporadic visits to father ' s residence during which she determined that the condition of his residence was messy was not supported by any objective evidence. Father acknowledged that his residence is cluttered from time to time, but not dirty. Therefore, the physical characteristics of both parents' residences are 

# I appropriate and there was no evidence of any materially adverse environmental factor or other physical household issue which would have a deleterious effect upon the child. 3. Parties' Employment and Income

Neither parent is employed. Father has received disability benefits for the past four years as a result of leg and back conditions. Mother is also disabled due to shoulder 

# I issues, but indicated that she would be eligible to have her nursing license reinstated in 

### l December 2015 following a period of suspension after she had entered a guilty plea to an offense i n volving her having altered a prescription for Vicodin Neither mother nor father disclosed the amount each receives in disability benefits, but an allowance paid on b e half of 

# P-
was the focus of testimony provided by both parties. Mother indicated that she had been receiving $86 a month on behalf of Ptlll, but the recipient of the benefits was changed by father as the representative4 ! ~ 1 t 

# I pay ee . Mother believes father has been receiving $400 a month in disability benefit s 

### i attributed to 

## Plll9. The disability ben e fits allotted to P

... is derivative of father's /

~ disability benefits and those benefits are being held in escrow until suchtime a s the issue ! 

### ! of custody has been addressed, such that neither parent has been receiving benefits on 

# I behalf of FL j of late. f In addition to the disability benefits in an undetermined amount which are paid to 

# I father, father's current wife, S 

## Rt9 contributes to father's household income by 

# I
virtue of full time empl o yment as a secretary at Allegheny Coatings in Ridgway , I t
. Pennsylvania

. However, the amount of her income was not introduced ofrecord. Although not established with any degree of specificity, the financial resources 

# I ! availabl e to both parents is adequate to provide for 

### Pg f needs and there was no 

### I evidence that either parent was unable to pay for essentials for 

### l g or that she has been deprived of any necessaries. 4. Parents' Education

Father graduated from St. Marys Area High School in 1998 and attended college for one semester. Mother graduated from Glasgow High School in Delaware in 1997 and 

## I received an Associate ' s Degree in nursing from Del Tech. Both parents have the required educational background and abilities to provide P-with the necessary academic support and to assist her in school assignments. 5

. Child's Education

At the time of the June 23, 2015 hearing, P- had completed first grade at the 

# I South St. Marys Street Elementary School in St Marys, Pennsylvania , and had been promoted to second grade. She did very well in school, with her lowest grade in any of her core class curriculum being a 96 in English. She received 97's in Reading, Science, Health, and Social Studies, a 98 in Math and a 100 in Spelling as her final grades in those 

# I subj e cts (Plaintiff Exhibit 3). Father is engaged in P-s education and given the proximity of his residence t o that of the school, he frequently walks P- to school in the morning

. He att~nds parent/teacher conferences, open house, school plays and school book fairs and has communicated with Pg 

### I principal, teacher and guidance counselor about enrolling P

.... in an e nrichment program. Mother is also pro-active with P

... 's school work , 

### j !Father's extended family resides primarily in the Elk County area. Paternal ' grandparents, l9and 

## n,mt Rtl9, live in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, while father's in- 

### j laws, 

## 11llt 

# s• and 

# DIIIKIII also live in St. Marys. Paternal aunt, S ) 

## I 

# ca a' lives in Kersey, Pennsylvania. Significantly, P.. 's half-siblings,~ and 

# I

f 

### 5 

# I i I i same town as mother. Sundays during father's periods of physical custody. 7

. Extended Family and Sibling Relationships

. 

# I

Mother ' s brother, B 

## I 

# !llllllll, and his six-year-old son live in Emporium, 

# I Pennsylvania, while mother's two sisters live in Bear, Delaware. Maternal grandmother, 

### I H

.. 

## !lllll, also lives in Millsbarrow, Delaware. Therefore, the family member in closest pro x imity to mother and 

### Pg is B ) D

.. as he and his son live in the 

## I I Elementary School in Emporium, Pennsylvania, the school P

... would attend if she lived primarily in Emporium

. The rankings were based o n a total of 1,422 Pennsylvania E lementary schools. 6
. Child's Religiou s Training · 

# I

Mother has been actively involv e d attending the F i rst Presbyterian Church i n 

# I Emporium, Pennsylvania, for the past year and has taken P

... to church on a number 

## I of occasions. Pastor P. W. ~ observed that P

.. seems to enjoy church and 

# l

e x hibits an interest in church, but that there is at present no Sunday School program 

## I available 

## Plllf 

# I Father does not attend church, but indicated that because 

## Pllllt appears to enjoy attending church , he has afforded her the opportunity to go to church with mother on with school administration. 

# I including insuring that P

.. gets her homework fini s hed. Mother has also engaged in ! school activities and addressed an issue re g arding P

.. being the target of bullying 

# I I 

# I T~e evidence demonstrates that 

# P- does very well in school. She di s plays no 

# I kind of aberrant behavior at school, having received satisfactory grades in all areas of 

# I Teacher Observation. 

# I While not materially compelling, a comparison of school ratings introduced by f plaintiff (plaintiff Exhibits 1 and 2) yielded 2014 statewide elementary school rankings I 383 for the South St. Marys Street Elementary School and 420 for the Woodland 

# I

## t 

# I 6 In the course of conducting the custodial evaluations (Court Exhibit 1 ), Daniel F. Kysor, a licensed psychologist, administered testing assessments and also made direct observations of the parties, the child and the parties' interactions with Ptllt. Both mother and father were administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (Wechsler), the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II (Kaufinan) and the 

### j Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II-Restructured Form (MMPI-11-RF). Kysor also utilized a comprehensive parenting tool to assess the parties' abilities to properly parent P... Father's score on the Wechsler scale was in the average range at the 2?1h percentile. He also obtained average scores in the verbal area. His working memory was deficient and his abstract reasoning was low average. Mother 

### l obtained a Wechsler score in the average range at the 39th percentile. Her verbal area score was in the high average while her working memory, abstract reasoning and speed of task completion were in the average to low average range. The Kaufman test results attained by father indicated that he is functioning in the 

# I low average level in r eading, written expression, and math with the measured results I being similar to that of a middle school student. Mother's Kaufman test led to an indication that she is functioning in the low average level in math and at the post-high school level in reading and written expression. b) a) Physical Health As set forth hereinabove, both mother and father are currently disabled, but 

### I 8. Mental and Physical Conditions of the Parents aggressive towards Pi was not corroborated by any objective evidence. Finally [ P

... was described as having a very close relationship with her step-brother, 

# <11111 1 

# I I

~ 1 

# slllt Rtllll, also reside in father's Walnut Street , St. Marys, Pennsylvania residence. 

# I

I The relationship between 

## 1 I and her half siblings was found to be normal for seven 

## j I year olds, mother ' s positing to the contrary notwithstanding as both mother's and ! 

## 7 maternal grandmother's assertions that P j l ' s half-sister S 

# S has been physically7



# I I l I 

# ! I
' i I 

# ' ii 

# I I 1 1
1 1 

# I

1 1 

# ! ! 1 t 

## I 

## I l l p ~ l I' ~ I l 

### I 1 1 l i I ' l I Father's MMPI-II-RF results yielded somatic complaints including head pain and 

# I I neurological symptoms and an indication that he may develop physical symptoms in 

## I I response to stress. There were no abnormal results indicative of any organic or 

# I psychological disorder, but treatment considerations were indicated for father's pain 

# i ! management. Mother's MMPI-II-RF results raised concerns about the possible 

# I impact of her under reporting on the validity of the assessment. Somatic complaints 

# ! related to head pain and issues relating to previous juvenile conduct problems were 

# I ! indicated. She too was found to be prone to the development of physical symptoms 

## i ! in response to stress and treatment considerations for pain management were also 

# I indicated for her. Despite the compromise of the protocol validity by her under 

# I reporting, there were no apparent atypical conditions or issues which were 

# ! determined. · 'I The comprehensive parenting tool utilized by Dan Kysor led him to determine that father possesses fair to good social judgment and other positive traits relevant to 

### I effective parenting. Mother also displayed good to fair social judgment as a result of Kysor's utilizing a comprehensive parenting tool with her and she also demonstrates 

## I i the capacity to promote and maintain the welfare of 

### Pg ff and to be an effective · parent. As a result of Dan Kysor's observations and assessments of mother and father, he [ developed clinical impressions for both. Father was attributed an Axis I impression 

# I of adjustment disorder. While Kysor referred to the clinical impression of possible 

# ! drug addiction in remission, he provided no substantive basis for that determination. There was no question but that father does occasionally drink alcoholic beverages and is also prescribed methadone and piercocet, but there was no evidence that he currently presents with any kind of substance abuse issues. Father's Axis III l impression was that of disability due to back issues and on Axis IV, father presented I as exhibiting stress due to the pending custody proceeding. Kysor's clinical impression of mother was that on Axis I, she presented with an impression of drug abuse in remission by reports since 2006 and bipolar disorder by report. While mother's history includes reference to substance abuse, as with father, there was no evidence of any use of controlled substances which compromised parenting abilities

### 8 recommendation are in no way controlling, let alone dispositive. recommendation based on his assessments, all of which have been considered by the 

## i Court and attributed the appropriate weight but Kysor's impressions, findings and [ 

# I 

# I I ' ! ! 

## !

t 

# I 

# I I I 

# I or jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of P.... Her Axis III impression was

that she was disabled due to shoulder issues and she, like father, presented an Axis IV impression of stress due to the issues of child custody. There was no mate r ial evidence that either father or mother presented with any kind of mental health disorder which would militate against them continuing to effectively parent P-and similarly, there was no evidence that any past disorder had in anyway compromised P-s best interests. 9. Child's Psychological Profile

On December 7, 2014 and January 7, 2015 , 

## PJ was assessed by Dan Kysor in the context of both mental health status and her bonding attachment to her parents. She first appeared with father and during that appointment, Kysor noticed that her interaction with father was good and was "good and positive." During her second appearance before 

## ! ! Kysor when she accompanied mother , Kysor found that she responded to her mother in It

. . an "affectionate manner, without prompting." 

### P4111Ws affect was upbeat and excited when she was with mother and somewhat 

# I more restrained and controlled when present with her father. However, there were no 

# I I perceptual disturbances or psychotic patterns noted, nor were there any signs or 

# I i symptoms of any disorders whatsoever. 

## ! I P

.. was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV Edition. ] Her intellectual ability was found to be in the high average range and her working 

### j '

. 1 memory was noted to be average. The Kaufman test was also administered to 

## Piii to " assess her current achievement levels. Those results were consistent with her measured intellectual ability and indicated that 

# P- is functioning within the high to average j range in all areas of achievement. 

# I While Kysor found that P

.. has bonded with both her parents, he determined 

## I that she demonstrated a strong bond with mother and a more restrained bond with father. Kysor also recited P-s preferences as expressed to him as well as hisWh i le mother filed a petition for protection from abuse. again s t father on February



### j I 4, 2011 , to No. 201 1 -199 of the Cameron County Branch of this Court and a temporary 

## I d 1 1 protective order was entered that date , mother orally moved to withdraw her p e titio n at 

# I I l I 9
11 q 

### i I The evidence de m onstrated that both parties p e rmit frequent and continuing

contact betw ee n 

# PIIIII and the other party and h a v e from time to time a ccommod a ted 

## I requested deviations in the existi n g custody sch e dule to allow P

.. to enga g e in activit i es w i th the non - cu s todial par e nt such as father allowing moth e r to take Ptml to church o n father ' s Sundays. Moth e r has included fathe r and his family member s in birthday celebrations for 

# W Both have acquiesced to the other parent taking P

... on trips, with mothe r takin g 

# PIIII to Delaware and Florida during periods of father's custody and father taking 

### P[ 

## J to an amusement park. 

## !1 

# ! 

# I! i r: 

# I 1 1 

# I ' 10. Performance of Essential Duti e s 

# i
I 

### j Both parties have performed essential duties for P

... and have addressed her 

### j 

# ! ! moral de v elopment and educational progress. 1 1 • 1 1 11. Current Be s t Inter e st s 

# !

1 1 1 ' Th e evidence clearly established that the current physical , intellectual, m o ral and 

## I I · 

# I ! i spiritual w ell-being of P

... will be met by mother and father c ont i nuing to shar e l 

### d 

### ! I ! physical and legal custody as provided in the court order ent e r e d as the order of 

## I 1 1 disposition for the pending custody mo dification petition. 

# I

1

· r J i It 

# · ! STATUTORY FACTOR FINDINGS I 

# I i In conjunction with the foregoing general findings, the Court al s o enter s th e foll o win g 

# I I I

. findings in accordance with 23 Pa. C.S.A. 5328(a). 

# I
1. Factors (a)(8) and (a) (12) are non-factors

. ! I t 

# I 

# I Ther e was no evidence of any attempt by either par e nt

_ to turn 

## PIIIII agai n st the l 

# I othe r parent. Additionally, adequat e child care is prov i ded by both parent s when P

.. 

# !

, is in their cu s tod y as both parents are disabled and neither ha s any employment or othe r 

# I

commitments requiring that they be abs e nt from direct s upervision of p

.... for any r extended period

. 

# I
2. Facto rs (a)(l ), (a)(2) , (a ) (2.1) , (a) ( 3), (a)(9 ) , (a)(l 0), (a)(l 1) , (a)(13) , (a)(14 ) , (a)(l 5) , a nd 

# I (a)(16) are equally weighted.10 

# I I I 

# !it Both parents indicated that they have been able to co-operate with one another 

# I and that the level of conflict has been neutral for the most part, but the pending custody 

# I 

# I I ! 

# I 

# I I 1 the time of the hearing on the petition. The motion was granted, the petition withdrawn 

## ! I and the temporary protective order of February 4, 2011, was vacated. There was thus no 

# l adjudication of mother's claims and no finding of any abuse perpetrated by father. 

# ! I Both parties have had contact with local child protective service agencies, but no 

### j incidents of abuse were founded nor were any services recommended or offered. Elk 

### I I County Children and Youth Services investigated a report that father permitted 

## PJ R to 

# ! go to Luhr Park without supervision. Father acknowledged he had allowed P

.. to go 

# I

) to the park which is some one hundred yards from his residence, but that she was always [ in 

### the company of her step-brother and/or half-brother and sister and father had a direct 

# I sight-line from his house to the park

. After conducting an investigation, Elk County 

# I Children and Youth Services determined that no case would be opened and no services I were warranted. Prior to moving to her current residence, mother lived in an apartment in Emporium for about five years and Cameron County Children and Youth Services investigated the apartment conditions but found no circumstances requiring further contact or the implementation of services. During this investigation, father was reported 

### ! i to have wanted to contact Cameron County Children and Youth Services to let the agency know that he thought mother was a good mother. Both father and mother perform the parental duties required to keep P

.. safe 

### I and healthy and to promote her best interests. Similarly, both parents are equally likely 

# I to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing environment for their daughter as J both have done so for extended periods of time. ' Since mother and father are available throughout the day given that both are disabled and do not work, the attention paid by them to P ... 's physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs are the same. No special needs of 

# P-

were identified. 

# I The distance between father's residence in St. Marys and mother's residence in 

### j Emporium is about twenty miles and that proximity promotes each parent's ability to 

# I maintain frequent contact with P

.. , but it is impractical for mother to transport P

.. 

### I from Emporium to attend school in St. Marys, Pennsylvania.

l i I 

### I 

## I 1 1 l I 1 1 

# I

I'

## i 

# I ! 

# ! I 11

attending school in St. Marys beginning with kindergarten and to her relocating to St. 1 Marys. ~has indeed attended South St. Marys Street Elementary School for the 

# I I past two years and done very well in school. There was certainly no evidence to suggest 

### j 

# i ! f 

# I I 

# I I ( litigation has exacerbated stressors on co-parenting, although both converse during 

## l ! · custody exchang e s and at othe r t i mes as necessary . 

# I 1 Substance abuse issues we r e identified for both parents, but at present, no drug 

## ! I usage has been demonstrated wh i ch has comp ro mised either parent's abil i ty to effectively ! ' parent 

## PIIIJ Mother acknowledg e d an addiction to drugs prior to P

... ' s birth , but 

# i has maintain e d sobriety for at least the last seven years. She continues to attend AA and ! ~ NA meetings and has taken P

.. to the meetings to ostensibly teach her about 

# I substance abuse. This is a curious approach in light of P-s age, but there was no 

# I

; evidence that P

... has any adverse reaction to her attending the meetings. 

## I The reason promoted for mother ending her relationship with • S .in March J I of this year after she learned he was using drugs in somewhat circumspect, but there was 

# I no evidence whatsoever that S-s drug usage occurred at any time wh e n P

... was 

## !

I present. Fath e r has been prescribed both Percocet and methadone for five years to 

## ! address chronic low back and l e ft leg pain

. He indicated that his methadone prescription 

## j is a low dose of 5 to 10 mg and there was no evidence that the methadone had been 

# I l prescribed for anything but pain. Father , also testified that on the wee k ends, he will drink 

# i three to four beers over a five t o six hour period. While mother promoted that father's 

# ! drinking alcohol which taking methadone was contra-indicated and a display of poor 

# ! judgment, the evidence in support of mother's position in the nature of an internet article 

# I (defendant Exhibit A) was i neffectual when not presented with any corroborative 

### l l evidence of father's dual usage which compromised his functioning as a parent. 

## ! i The mental and physical conditions of the parents are discussed in the general 

# i I findings h e reinabove and no condition of either parent detracts from their parenting 

# ! abilities. There was no evidence of any adverse mental or physical condition attributable 

# ! toS .. R... 

# i l 3. The (a)(5), (a)(6) and (a)(7) factors are weighted in favor of father. 1

Mother's evidence regarding her inability to locate housing in St. Marys was disingenuous. In March 2013, when repre s ented by counsel, she stipulated to 

# P- ·let alone demonstrate that any change in P

.. 's academic setting would be in her best ! interests. To the contrary, a change in schools would likely de s tabilize P ... 's 

# l educational progress. 

# I

t Similarl y , the only r eas o n presented by m o ther to e x plain why she had not 

# I
r relocated was that she could not afford t o . However, there w as no e vid e nce presented by 

### ! J her t o compare relati ve housing cost s in E mporium and St. M ary s n o r was the r e any 1 f evidence of any mater i al change in her income

. Rather , the evidence sugge st s that 

# ! d e spite he r clear representation th a t she would re - loca t e , s elf in t erest s prevailed, 

# I including her continued relationship with 

### Fe 

# s• which only ended during the 

# i penden c y of this modification p e tition. Fath e r is the parent most likely to insure the 

### j
f stability in P

... s education, famil y life and community 

### li fe

. As set forth in th e 

# I general findings, P

.. has greater opportunity to maintain sibling r e l a tionships with 

# I fa ther. P

.. i s mother's only child, whil e father ' s twin childr e n and hence IWllll ' s 

# I half-brother and half-s i ster , 

# s• and 

# sllt Rll9, resid e with father as does 

## IWII ' s I I step-brother , C

.. 

## !39. Most o f P

.. ' s paternal e xt e nd e d famil y li ve in and around St. Mar y s w hile 

# I only a mat~ma l uncle and P-s cousin live in Emporium. The other e x tend e d 

# i members of mother's family live in Dela w are, including maternal grandmother and 

# I maternal aunts. T he d is tance fa ctor alone results in Plllt having g reater opportunit y to ! inte r act with members of fathe r' s f am i ly on a consistent ba s is. 

## i Other relevant facto r s which includ e P

.. ' s spi r itual de v elopment and the c rimin a l 

# I records of the parti e s. After inquiri n g o f the First Presbyterian Church in Empo r ium in early 2014 I whethe r the church could assist her in paying her r e nt, mother b e came active i n att e nding 

# I church, including regular services and Bible study class. She began taking 

# J>9' to 

## I church with her, which fathe r permitted although the se rv ices were duri ng his period of physical custody. Although father does discus s r eligious issues with P

.. , he doe s so on a much more in fo rmal basis and thus the spiritual development of 

## 1£ is weighted
s lightly in favor mother. Contact with th e crimi n al justice system is weighted slightly in favor of father , 

# I wh o has no criminal record. Mother presents with a criminal history which includes a 

# I I 12 

# I I I :- ~ 

### I ' ! { !

' I j 

### i f , , ( ~ r s ' t fl


## · 1 

## I : I ! 

# I , i I I ' ~ t I l • r, 

### ! 

## l

I 

# l li 

# I i d i ~ p ,! 

## i I 

# u 

# I I I. 

# I

I I 

# I ,

. . f rt q 

# I ! n I I 

## ' I 

## ! ! 1 1 l i
, r 

### I r 

# I! 4. 

# Ii

' I 1 , ! ' rt 

# ! l ~ f I 

## p l 

# I I ) 

# I I ! 

# l 1 

## ! ii 1 1 

# I !
I I 

### I ~ 

## I I 'I 1 1 

# ! I13

August 11, 2015 p 

### !I 

# I! ! r f J l I ' l 

# ! [. ! 1

. 2007 guilty plea for a violation of the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, graded as an (

r unclassified misdemeanor, a 2007 guilty plea to a summary offense of harassment, a 

# I
1 · 1 2008 guilty plea to a misdemeanor two simple assault and a 2008 guilty plea to an ! 11 ungraded misdemeanor driving after imbibing offense which resulted in a three-day to six 

# I

1 1 month sentence of incarceration. The criminal incidents occurred in a relatively 

# I I I compressed time period in 2007 and 2008, including two within months of P

.. s 

# I

' i ; 

## I , birth, but since then Mother's criminal record is clean, notwithstanding evidence
! I • 

## Ii l 

# I regarding a May 2015 incident involving a confrontation with her aunt which resulted in ! 

# I I charges filed before Magisterial District Judge Barry D. Brown. 

# I I J Despite the want of substantial. cogent and compelling evidence, both parents are 

# I 1 ! I 

# I undoubtedly positive parental forces in P .. s life and are expected to continue to promote her 

# I
I best interest in the future by continuing to maintaining constant contact with her. 

## I 

# L I

J I 

# I

I I 

# I I ii ! t 1 1 

# l
1 1 

# I l 

# I I
I 

### !