J-S03031-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

J.R.

v.

C.J.R.

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 785 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Dated June 17, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Domestic Relations at 

No(s): 1937 of 2019 GD

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: FEBDRUARY 24, 2022

C.J.R. (Father) appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) granting J.R. (Mother) primary physical 

custody of the parties’ daughter, C.R. (born 5/11) and their son, M.R. (born 

10/13) (collectively, Children) during the school year and allowing their

relocation from Uniontown, Pennsylvania, to Flint, Michigan.

1 Father challenges 

the trial court’s assessment of the statutory custody and relocation factors and 

its determination that supervision is necessary for his periods of partial custody. 

We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Father is from Uniontown and Mother is from Flint.
J-S03031-22

- 2 -

I.

A.

The parties met in 2010 in North Carolina where Father was then stationed 

in the Marine Corps. During their relationship, Father was deployed to 

Afghanistan for several months, at which time Mother moved back to Flint and 

gave birth to C.R. When Father returned, they resided together in North Carolina 

and then in Louisiana, where Father was stationed. The couple’s relationship 

was always conflict-laden and they attempted to reconcile when Mother learned 

she was pregnant with M.R. in March 2013. They resided in Louisiana until 

Father left the Marine Corps in April 2015 and moved to Uniontown where they 

continue to live together. They were married in August 2016.

B.

Mother filed a complaint in divorce and notice of relocation in fall 2019

seeking to relocate Children to a four-bedroom home in Flint owned by her 

father. Father filed a counter-affidavit opposing the relocation. The trial court 

held a trial de novo over two days in January 2021 at which several witnesses

testified, including Mother, Father, Children and S.S., a former girlfriend of 

Father.

2

Mother testified that she is employed full-time by Dick’s Sporting Goods in 

a management position. She typically works a ten-hour, five-day per week shift 

____________________________________________

2 At the time of trial, there was a custody order in effect through a North Carolina 

court awarding Mother primary custody of C.R. The order did not address M.R.
J-S03031-22

- 3 -

and her employment would transfer upon relocation. Mother recounted that in 

March 2018, Father’s drug use began to impact Children because he would 

smoke synthetic marijuana and exhibited “zombiefied behavior, so he wasn’t 

necessarily aware of where my kids were and what was going on with them if he 

did have them in his care.” (N.T. Trial, 1/08/21 at 50). Although Mother and 

members of Father’s family urged him to enter a rehabilitation facility, he refused 

and continued abusing substances. Mother testified to her firsthand knowledge 

of Father’s drug use after she filed for divorce in that she “found him passed out 

in the driveway sleeping multiple times [and] found a bottle of what had 

marijuana in it.” (Id. at 53). Mother described photographs of Father introduced 

into evidence as exhibits depicting him “on synthetic marijuana at all hours of 

the night sleeping in the car [and one photograph showing] him passed out in 

the car with a bowl . . . he had his pants undone with his private area out.” (Id.

at 55). Mother explained that Father was fired from his job at Console Mine

because of his substance abuse and his affair with another employee. He is 

currently self-employed hauling junk loads and firewood delivery through a 

business he started with his father.

Mother testified that since she filed for divorce, Father has made several 

changes to the condition of the marital home to make it essentially unlivable, 

including ripping “everything out” of the kitchen so that “there is no working 

sink, no counter tops . . . the ceiling is open and exposed.” (Id. at 63). Father 

has thrown some of Mother’s belongings away out of anger and displays his 

firearms, knives and a hatchet openly on walls in the basement accessible to 
J-S03031-22

- 4 -

Children. Mother described an incident in which Father burned materials in the 

fireplace other than wood and “the whole house filled with smoke and I couldn’t 

breathe it was in my chest.” (Id. at 66). Mother became fearful of Father and 

sought police assistance when he set up cameras pointing at the living room sofa 

where she sleeps and went into a “manic episode” slamming things in the house. 

(Id. at 67).

Mother recounted that when she and Father initially discussed divorce, he 

indicated that she could have custody of Children and he understood why she no 

longer wanted to reside in Uniontown. Because they could not agree on child 

support and tax issues, Father retracted his initial position. Mother’s brother, 

sister and large extended family live in Flint and they are very supportive of her 

and Children. Mother attended the same school district that Children would 

enroll in and she has researched local medical care providers and extracurricular 

activities for Children. Mother stated that she has always met the everyday

needs of Children by taking them to appointments and lessons and 

communicating with teachers.

Mother acknowledged that the drive from Uniontown to Flint is six hours 

but testified she believed Father’s relationship with Children could be preserved,

and that he and his family are welcome to visit Flint at any time. Mother is 

willing to meet at a halfway point to drive Children to Father and he can talk 

with them on the telephone on a daily basis. Mother testified to her belief that 

the move would not negatively impact Children, and that while she refrains from 

speaking to them about the divorce, Father has “screamed and yelled and thrown 
J-S03031-22

- 5 -

things to where the kids are afraid.” (Id. at 87). Mother has no support system 

in Uniontown but has a large support system in Flint and cost-free childcare 

through family. Mother testified that Father has been absent for much of 

Children’s childhoods, preoccupied with drug use and other women, while she 

has put Children first and will continue to do so.

Father testified that he served in the Marines for nine years and had 

difficulty adjusting to civilian life after leaving the military. He acknowledged, “I 

smoked synthetic marijuana heavily. It started more as a recreational thing, I 

became addicted to it [. . . in the] summer of 2010.” (Id. at 183). Father

decided to “get clean” in February 2017 because “I didn’t know who I was 

anymore. . . and realized ‘listen buddy you need to do something better or you’re 

going to be dead.’” (Id. at 184). Father explained that he participated in mental 

health and drug addiction counseling for about one year after he was arrested 

for resisting arrest while he was driving intoxicated. Father indicated that he 

was fully sober from February 2017 through January 2020, but that he then 

smoked medical marijuana and took “four or five oxycodone” tablets that had 

not been prescribed to him because he had injured his elbow and hand. (Id. at 

187).

Father stated that he has never smoked in front of Children nor driven 

while he was high, and that he is willing to participate in counseling again. He 

admitted to sleeping in his car “countless” times because he was hiding his drug 

addiction. (Id. at 199). Father represented that he began remodeling the 

marital home to help with sleeping arrangements after he and Mother separated,
J-S03031-22

- 6 -

and that during the kitchen remodel, the home was without running water in 

that room for only ten days.

Father operates a business with his father and “hauls things [such as] 

gravel, firewood, mulch, junk.” (Id. at 200). He testified that he lost his former 

employment in March 2020 because of the economic downturn. Father stated 

that Children excel in school, that he and Mother assist with school work, and 

that he has taken the lead with extracurricular activities when Mother has to 

work. Father described himself as a very involved parent with a supportive 

extended family in in Uniontown.

S.S. testified that she dated Father for one year and that he initially spent 

every night at her home.

3

 After he was fired from his job in March 2020, Father

was at her house for 14 to 16 hours every day. S.S. described Father’s behavior 

as “erratic” and she “was petrified that he was taking too many pills.” (Id. at 

143). S.S. testified to Father’s angry outbursts and use of oxycodone prescribed 

in the names of other people. In one instance, “he kept chattering his teeth a 

lot . . . he would repeat everything that he was saying and bouncing around and 

using power tools. . . . at three in the morning.” (Id. at 144). S.S. personally 

observed Father detox on her sofa four different times during their relationship. 

She recounted that Father took pills in the days prior to a vacation he had 

planned with Children and drove “the kids any way on zero sleep in the middle 

____________________________________________

3 The trial court found S.S. to be a credible witness despite the circumstances of 

her prior relationship with Father.
J-S03031-22

- 7 -

of the night. He was texting me the entire time he was driving and the one text 

I got was telling me how not only did he just take hydrocodone but also was 

smoking a bowl while driving, drinking coffee and the kids were passed out in 

the backseat on the way to the beach.” (Id. at 148). While on vacation, he told 

S.S. that he took mushrooms and he talked about his drug use daily.

C.R. was nine years old at the time of trial and M.R. was seven years old. 

C.R. testified that she has a good relationship with and loves both of her parents,

and that Mother and Father do not say negative comments about one another

to her. However, she is aware that “they are fighting . . . [and] don’t really talk 

too often[.]” (Id. at 20-21). M.R. testified that he loves and does fun activities 

with both of his parents. Children indicated that they like to spend time with 

extended family members on each side of their family.

On June 17, 2021, the trial court entered its Opinion and Order awarding 

Mother primary physical custody of Children during the school year, subject to 

Father’s partial physical custody during school summer recesses/breaks and 

alternating holidays. The Order also provides for Father’s periods of custody to 

be supervised by his mother or any member of his immediate family, and 

requires him to undergo a drug addiction/psychiatric evaluation and to follow 

treatment recommendations, with a successful completion goal of lifting the 

supervision requirements.
J-S03031-22

- 8 -

In its opinion, the trial court discussed the relocation4 and custody factors5

and found that Mother’s move could be accomplished while preserving Children’s 

____________________________________________

4 Section 5337 of the Domestic Relations Code requires that the trial court 

consider the following factors when a party is relocating:

(h) Relocation factors.─In determining whether to grant a 

proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, 

giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the 

safety of the child:

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of 

the child’s relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with 

the nonrelocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the 

child’s life.

(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the 

likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, 

educational and emotional development, taking into consideration 

any special needs of the child.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the 

nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody 

arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances 

of the parties.

(4) The child’s preference, taking into consideration the age 

and maturity of the child.

(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of 

either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and 

the other party.

(6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of 

life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, 

financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.

(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of 

life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional 

benefit or educational opportunity.
J-S03031-22

- 9 -

____________________________________________

(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or 

opposing the relocation.

(9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or 

member of the party’s household and whether there is a continued 

risk of harm to the child or an abused party.

(10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.

23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(1)-(10).

5 Trial courts must consider the following factors in rendering a custody 

determination:

(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.
J-S03031-22

- 10 -

relationship with Father and his extended family through periods of partial 

physical custody. In doing so, the court found that while Mother has strived to 

provide a stable, wholesome environment for Children and is open to working 

____________________________________________

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

child’s maturity and judgment.

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

parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety 

measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.

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

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the 

child’s emotional needs.

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

emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the 

child.

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

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

make appropriate child-care arrangements.

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

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. 

A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not 

evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

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

of a party’s household.

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

of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1)-(16).
J-S03031-22

- 11 -

with Father to preserve his bond with Children, Father has done little to provide 

a happy life for them in that he has expressed intense anger at Mother, engaged 

in multiple affairs causing him to spend time away from the family, and 

developed a drug addiction that has been detrimental to the family as a whole

and constitutes a significant safety risk for Children, particularly with regard to 

transporting and travelling with them. Father timely appealed and he and the 

trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)-(ii).

II.

On appeal, Father contends the trial court failed to adequately analyze the 

ten relocation and the 16 custody factors in that it summarily discussed or 

omitted many of the enumerated factors. Father claims the custody 

arrangement is not in Children’s best interests and the trial court ignored the 

stable, well-adjusted lives they lead in Uniontown by permitting relocation. 

Father maintains that he has been honest about his synthetic marijuana 

addiction and the trial court afforded too much weight to his drug issue, while 

failing to give appropriate weight to his role as a dedicated and loving father to 

Children. Father further contests the conditions of supervision as harsh and 

draconian, given that he agreed to additional drug and mental health

counseling.6

____________________________________________

6 When reviewing child custody orders,

our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of 

discretion. This Court must accept findings of the trial court that are 
J-S03031-22

- 12 -

“With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests

of the child.” D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467, 474 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted). “The determination of a child’s best interests involves the 

consideration of all relevant factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, 

intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, 

as the custodial parent seeking to relocate Children in this case, Mother had the 

burden of establishing that relocation is in their best interest. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 

5337(i)(1)(setting forth burden of proof).

Instantly, the record is replete with evidence demonstrating Father’s 

longtime drug addiction and anger issues. While Children clearly love both of 

their parents, Mother has shown that she is committed to maintaining their wellbeing and is willing and able to provide for their overall stability. Mother has an 

extensive family support system in Flint, cost-free childcare while she works, 

and is able to reside in her father’s large home with Children. This sharply 

____________________________________________

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, 

this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the 

proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses firsthand. 

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.

M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 111–12 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted; 

emphasis added).
J-S03031-22

- 13 -

contrasts with Mother’s complete lack of support system in Uniontown and 

dysfunctional living arrangement in the martial home, both from an emotional

and practical standpoint, in view of her contentious relationship with Father and 

his constant “remodeling.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/21, at 3. At the present 

time, Father appears incapable of providing the same consistency and level of 

care for Children in meeting their daily needs given his continued struggle with 

drug addiction, anger management issues, erratic behavior and overall 

preoccupation with himself. Id. at 15-16.

Although Father contends that the trial court cursorily discussed and 

overlooked entirely some of the relocation and custody factors, our review of the 

record does not confirm the same. Instead, reading the Opinion and Order as a 

whole and viewing it in the context of the testimony in this case, it is clear that 

the court fully considered all relevant factors in rendering its decision that 

primary physical custody of Children appropriately lies with Mother in Flint.

With regard to Father’s challenge to the weight the trial court afforded

evidence of his drug use, as we previously noted, our standard of review makes 

clear that concerning issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we must 

defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses firsthand. See M.J.N. supra, at 112. As to the court’s imposition of “draconian” 

supervision requirements, we find that the Order is instead flexible concerning

the family member who provides supervision, and that it includes a means of 

removing the supervision requirement altogether upon Father’s successful 

completion of treatment. In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence 
J-S03031-22

- 14 -

supports the findings of the trial court and its decision to award primary physical

custody of Children to Mother and permit their relocation to her hometown of 

Flint, subject to Father’s periods of partial physical custody in Uniontown. 

Father’s arguments to the contrary merit no relief.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/24/2022