J-A29001-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

D.S.

v.

H.H.N.P.

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 646 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered May 3, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at 

No(s): FD13-006087-008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: JANUARY 25, 2022

H.H.N.P. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on May 3, 2021, by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that awarded D.S. (Father) 

sole legal custody and primary physical custody of M.A.D. (Child), born in 

January of 2013. Mother was awarded partial physical custody of Child in 

accordance with a schedule delineated in the order. The order also held 

Mother in contempt of four prior orders of court. After careful review, we 

affirm the trial court’s custody order. However, we deny Father’s applications 

to quash and to dismiss this appeal and also deny his request for counsel fees. 

Before considering the merits of Mother’s appeal, which she filed on June 

4, 2021, we reviewed this Court’s docket and note that Father filed both an 

application to quash and an application to dismiss this appeal. Specifically, 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29001-21

- 2 -

on June 10, 2021, Father filed an application to quash, and on June 21, 2021, 

Mother responded. This Court’s order, dated July 8, 2021, denied the 

application to quash without prejudice, thus, allowing Father to file a new 

application to quash after the appeal was assigned to a merits panel. Then, 

on August 31, 2021, Father filed the application to dismiss, and Mother filed 

an answer on September 10, 2021. The application to dismiss was deferred 

to the merits panel. Thereafter, Father renewed his application to quash 

Mother’s appeal, which was granted by this Court in an order dated November 

17, 2021. Following Mother’s application to reconsider the order granting the 

quashal and Father’s response, this Court vacated its November 17, 2021 

order and deferred the quashal issue to the time of disposition by the merits 

panel. As a result, the case was relisted for argument on December 14, 2021. 

To begin, we deny Father’s applications to quash or to dismiss Mother’s

appeal. We disagree with Father that Mother’s appeal was untimely and, 

therefore, deny his application to quash. Mother filed her appeal within thirty 

days of the trial court’s issuance of the May 3, 2021 final order that amended 

the April 21, 2021 order. We also deny Father’s motion to dismiss. Although 

Mother’s Rule 1925(b) statement is lengthy and her brief fails to comply with 

our Rules of Appellate Procedure, our review is not impeded. See Jacobs v. 

Jacobs, 884 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“This Court has held that the 

rules of appellate procedure are ‘mandatory, not directing’ and it is within our 

discretion to dismiss an appeal when the rules of appellate procedure are 

violated. However, if the failure to comply with rules of appellate procedure 
J-A29001-21

- 3 -

does not impede review of the issues or prejudice the parties, we will address 

the merits of the appeal.”) (citation and some quotation marks omitted). 

Moreover, it is the consensus of this merits panel that emphasizing the trial 

court’s reasoning underlying its determination may be more appropriate and 

helpful to Mother in the months and years ahead. Additionally, we recognize 

that in a prior appeal to this Court, Father’s motion to dismiss was granted. 

See D.P.S. v. H.H.N.P., No. 1692 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 9, 2017) 

(order granting motion to dismiss appeal but denying request for counsel 

fees). We likewise deny Father’s request for counsel fees. 

We now turn to the issues raised in Mother’s appeal and proceed to 

review the merits, which have been appropriately addressed by the trial court. 

The relevant scope and standard of review in custody matters are as follows: 

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type 

and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings 

of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of 

record, as our role does not include making independent factual 

determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility 

and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial 

judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. 

However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or 

inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether 

the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the 

evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial 

court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in 

light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.

V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). 

Furthermore, we note that:

The discretion that a trial court employs in custody 

matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given 
J-A29001-21

- 4 -

the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting 

impact the result will have on the lives of the parties 

concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial 

court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding 

cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court 

by a printed record.

Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

(quoting Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 

2004)).

A.H. v. C.M., 58 A.3d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, “[w]hen a trial 

court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is paramount.” 

S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). 

Mother raises the following issues for our review: 

FIRST: Whether the four contempt adjudications were sufficiently 

proven, and whether the individual or collective result of those 

contempts could justify the [c]ourt’s intention to “craft an order 

that makes it a little less opportune for instability and lack of 

continuity to occur.” 

SECOND: Whether the Burger King – Meadows Casino incident 

where Mother’s children were left in the care of an older sibling 

was sufficiently proven to be given custody-factor weight and 

whether the result of that incident was sufficient to justify the 

[c]ourt’s intention to “craft an order that makes it a little less 

opportune for instability and lack of continuity to occur.” 

THIRD: Whether alleged instability in Mother’s home 

environment, whether alleged instability in Mother’s psychology, 

whether Mother’s alleged parental alienation syndrome, whether 

Mother’s alleged “economic dishonesty[,”] and whether Mother’s 

alleged moral turpitude were sufficiently proven to be given

custody-factor weight and whether the result of that incident was 

sufficient to justify the [c]ourt’s intent to “craft an order that 

makes it a little less opportune for instability and lack of continuity 

to occur.” 
J-A29001-21

- 5 -

FOURTH: Whether it was improper for the [c]ourt to delegate to 

Father the ability to modify/punish for contempt, without a judicial 

hearing. 

Mother’s brief at 9-10 (footnotes omitted; capitalization in original). 

In its opinion filed following the custody hearing, the trial court provided

a factual and procedural history of the case. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 

7/7/2021, at 1-2. The opinion also referenced the court’s reading into the 

record its analysis of the custody factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. Id.

at 2. This reading took place at a hearing on April 21, 2021, which was held 

remotely due to the pandemic. The court also noted that Mother was 

“removed from the remote hearing due to her failure to follow my 

admonishments and those of her lawyer to keep silent[.]” Id. at 2 n.3. The 

opinion also discussed the facts it relied on and its reasons for awarding Father 

sole legal custody and primary physical custody. Id. at 7-11.

Essentially, Mother’s arguments are requesting that this Court re-find 

facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, our standard of review 

does not permit us to function in this manner. Rather, our standard of review 

requires that we “accept findings of the trial court that are supported by 

competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making 

independent factual determinations.” C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 

(Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, 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.” E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa. 
J-A29001-21

- 6 -

Super. 2011). We do not conclude that that is the situation here. The trial 

court’s findings are based on competent evidence contained in the record and 

its conclusions are not unreasonable. 

We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable 

law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable 

Cathleen Bubash of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated 

July 7, 2021. We conclude that Judge Bubash’s opinion properly disposes of 

the issues presented by Mother in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial 

court’s opinion as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis. 

Order affirmed. Application to quash denied. Application to dismiss 

denied. Request for counsel fees denied. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/25/2022
Circu1a\��!?1Wt2022 09:10 AM 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

FAMILY DIVISION 

D.S .. 

H.P. 

. V. 

Plaintiff. 

Defendant. 

Opinion 

Sup. Ct. No: 646 WDA 2021 

FD 13-006087 

BY: 

Honorable Cathleen Bubash 

440 Ross Street 

Suite 5036 

Pittsburgh. PA 15219 

COPIES TO: 

Counsel for Plaintiff: 

John M. Schaffranek. Esq. 

Lisa Marie Veri & Associates 

Manor Building, Penthouse Suite 

564 Forbes Ave 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Counsel for Defendant: 

Joseph Chester, Esq. 

Caplan & Chester 

1309 Law & Finance Building 

429 Fourth Ave. 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

23 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA 

FAMILY DIVISION 

Plaintiff. 

v. 

Sup. Cl. No. 646 WOA 2021 

H.P. 

No.: FD-13-006087 

Defendant. 

OPINION 

Judge Cathleen Bubash July 7. 2021 

H.P. (hereinafter "Mother") appeals from my Moy 3. 2021, Custody Order 

entered after trial on D.S.'s (hereinafter "Father") petition for modification and 

four contempt petitions. I found Mother in contempt and imposed sanctions. On 

the custody modification, I reduced Mother's custody lime. not as punishment for 

her contempt. but because I found. based on the evidence presented, that 

reduction to be in the child's best interest. My Order should be affirmed. 

Pockground 

The parties have a daughter. M.A.D .. d.o.b. l /5/2013, (hereinafter "Child") 1• 

Mother and Father have been involved in litigation since subject Child was born. 

They have been operating under a Custody Order entered after trial in 2016.2 My 

Order of October 4, 2016, Order gave Father primary physical custody and 

Mother three weekends per month, and a weeknight visit. The parties shared 

1 Mother has three older children who are not a part of this case, at least one of whom suffers from autism. 

1 A more detailed account of the early volatile hblory or the parties ls set fO<th in my Opinion flied at 1692 WOA 

2016 in ,,..sponse to Mother's appeal of that Order. 

l 
custody on o week on /week off basis in the summer. Since 2016, numerous 

motions and pleadings have been filed, including the tour instant contempt 

petitions. Ultimately, Father filed for modification of the 2016 Order, seeking a 

reduction in Mother's custody time. 

At trial in Morch of 2021, I heard from Mother, Father, Child, ond Paternal 

Grandfather. with whom Father and Child live. A North Strabane police officer 

also testified regarding a July 7. 2019. incident where Mother left her children 

unattended in a Burger King. Throughout the proceedings. Mother's testimony 

was often contradictory, and, in some cases, I deemed it to be fabricated. The 

other witnesses. including Child, testified credibly 

On April 21. 2021, I read my factor analysis into the record.3 I entered my 

Custody Order on May 3, 2021, giving Father sole legal custody, reducing 

Mother's overnight custody to every other weekend year-round. and eliminating 

Mother's mid-week visits. The some Order set forth my contempt findings and 

sanctions. Molher filed her Notice of Appeal and Statement of Matters 

Complained of on June 2, 2021. Mother's rather rambling 1925(b) Statement is 

ten pages long and will not be fuUy set forth here. 

Discussion 

Because of the high level of acrimony in this case ond the resullont 

numerous docket entries. !his Court is very fammor with both parents. The high 

level of conflict which was present between the parties five years ago has not 

abated, and I found, os will be discussed below. tho! this conflict is almost solely 

perpetrated by Mother. I also found. os will be discussed in more detail that. 

although Child appears to be doing well, numerous concerns exist regarding 

'Mother had to be removed rrom the remote hearing due to her failure to follow my admonishments and those of 

her lawyer to keep silent 

2 

25 
Mother's parenting, and the positions in which she puts Child which I determined 

could best be remedied through a reduction in Mother's custody 

In Mother's 192S(b) Statement, she makes several arguments regarding my 

Order and reasoning which ore simply unsupporled by the record. She claims I 

made a finding of parental alienation. which I did not. though r found that Mother 

spoke to Child disparagingly of Father. She likewise claims I made a specific 

finding of Mother's mental illness - again. I did not. although I did speculate that 

Mother needs therapy to help her modify her behaviors. 

Most notably, Mother erroneously conflates my custody and contempt 

findings. She repeatedly asserts in her I 92S(b) Statement that I reduced her 

custody time as "punishment" for her contempt. To the contrary. 

I reduced 

Mother's custody lime because my analysis of the custody factors. when applied 

to the facts of this case. led to the conclusion that reducing Mother's custody 

time was in Child's best interest for several reasons. 

Mother's Lack of Credibility 

Before beginning to address Mother's arguments on appeal, I first note that 

I did not find a great deal of Mother's testimony to be credible. As one example: 

Mother is a nail technician by trade but testified she is currently unemployed. She 

further testified that she took Child to a nail salon solely to get Child's nails painted 

and not lo work (TR. P. 122-123). Child. however, testified they went more to the 

salon than once. they were there for hours. and that Mother worked and was 

paid for doing manicures and pedicures while Child folded towels for which she 

was paid a dollar (TR p. 176-178). J did not find it overly objectionable that Mother 

took Child lo work with her. but her lies about it put her credibifity in question. 

3 

26 
In another more serious example, Mother left her children in a Burger King 

while she went to a casino on July 7, 2019.

4 The police were called by the 

restaurant staff after the children had been there for hours and the shop was 

closing/ Although there was documentary evidence by the North Strabane 

poke officer that Mother hod been gambling in o casino during lhe lime in 

question (TR. P. 29-36). she claimed to only hove left the children for 15 minutes to 

go to on ATM to get money for o hotel room due to a utinty issue in her home. She 

further argued that the manager of the Burger King was lying to bolster Father's 

case. This level of neglect was very troubling lo me but so too was the lying about 

it. 

There were numerous times at trial where I found Mother not to be credible. 

When confronted with the inconsistency of her testimony. Mother would simply 

find someone lo blame besides herself. Mother's lock of credibility made it even 

her simplest testimony suspect. 

Contempt 

Much as Mother did in her previous appeal. she argues that I reduced her 

custody time to "punish" her for post behavior - in this instance for her contempt 

of previous Orders. Mother is simply incorrect. The instant Custody Order is not 

"punishment" of Mother. To the contrary, it was the testimony regarding Mother's 

current behavior as ii relates to Child's best interests that shaped my Order. as ii 

was in 2016. 

Mother first argues that it was error for me to schedule "o combined custody 

modification hearing with o contempt hearing" as it "accorded the Court the 

opportunity to punish Mother for contempt with deprivation of custody lime, 

• Mother argues in her 1925(b) Statement that this does not constitute neglect because the oldest child is old 

enough to be in chargo. That ciilld, however, suffers from mental disability, and, according to Che report from Che 

Burger King employees and the police officer. was in dlscress while thcre, not looklng after his S·year-old sibling (TR. P. 35, US) 

'The caller from Burger King indicated that Mother had done this before (TR. P. 114) 

4 

21 
which is manifestly improper and not in the best interest of the Child." Mother 

continues. ''ordinarily, custody contempt matters in Allegheny County ore 

managed by Special Moster Hearing Officers lo ovoid this conflict." These 

statements ore not only without merit. they ore erroneous and I find it rather 

shocking that on experienced attorney drafted them. 

Custody contempt matters ore often handled by Masters in Allegheny County, 

not to prevent judges from experiencing what Mother asserts is an "unavoidable" 

conflict. but for calendar control purposes. When. as here, a modification and a 

motion for contempt in custody are pending simultaneously. they ore heard 

together. To do otherwise would be a waste of court resources. The implication 

that a silting judge cannot hear two issues at one time without being 

fundamentally unfair is ludicrous. There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania, are those 

without master's trampling on parental rights as a matter of course? The 

argument is specious. 

Mother then argues that "the Court cannot demonstrate how deprivation 

of custody time would cure the issues of alleged contempt and that the 

olegotions of contempt were not "sufficiently serious or severe to justify 

deprivation of custody time." Both of these sentences are true but have as much 

to do with this case as the sentence, "The sky is blue." I did not deprive Mother of 

custody time as a remedy for her contempt. 

Mother was found in contempt for not paying Father money she was court 

ordered to pay, for colling the police to assist with custody exchanges though 

ordered not to do so, for withholding Child during Father's Thanksgiving custody 

time, and for repeatedly violating the Court Ordered exchange location. For 

these violations. I imposed sanctions at Paragraphs 8-11 of my Order, all of which 

were monetary and none of which include deprivation of custody. 

5 

28 
Accordingly, Mother's repeated assertions that I erred by reducing her custody 

time as punishment for contempt ore belied by the very Order she appeals and 

should be dismissed as without merit. 

Mother argues that my contempt findings were not supported by the 

evidence. Again, this is unfounded. With regard to the July 23, 2019. Order 

requiring Mother to reimburse Father for the $200.00 he hod to wire her so she and 

Child could return from a Florida vocoflon.e Mother introduced a receipt for 

payment purportedly signed by Father. Father denied ii was his signature and I 

believed Father, finding Mother's account lo be o fabrication as she never raised 

this purported receipt as a defense when she had previous opportunity to do so. 

(TR. P 73-75) 

I also found Mother in contempt for continuing to call the police for custody 

exchanges, otter she wos ordered lo cease doing so on April 10, 2020. Father 

testified that on May 29, 2020, Mother arrived at Father's home to toke Child on a 

day which was not her custody day. When Father refused, Mother called the 

police despite the Order. (TR. P. 16-17). Mother did not deny this. 

A third contempt finding arose from Mother withholding the Child from Father 

on his Thanksgiving custody time in 2020. The 2016 Order provided Mother with 

custody every Thanksgiving Day. Twice in the past, Father agreed to let Mother 

keep Child for the entire weekend, but he did not agree to do so when Mother 

asked him lo in 2020. Mother kept her anyway and left on a vocation. (TR. P. 146- 

148). I did not credit Mother's assertion that she was confused and found, instead 

that she knowingly violated the Order. 

• Mother did not give father the requislte notice for this vacation and then presented a motion to another judge to 

get permission to go. Father argued that he did not believe Mother had the money to go. She was give,i 

permission, took Child to Florida, and then did not have the money to return. Father wired her $200.00 for gas 

and tolls to get home. (TR. P. 22-28) 

6 

29 
Lastly, due to the hostility between the parties - primarily Mother's angry 

outbursts al Father, the 2016 Order provided for exchanges at a police station. 

Mother repeatedly requested Father come lo an exchange elsewhere. Often. 

when he did so. she would still not have Child ready, or would be at another 

location, or would otherwise thwart Father coming into custody There was no 

credible explanation for this behavior. and I therefore found Mother in contempt 

of this provision. 

Additionally, I provided in Paragraph 3c that. going forward. if Mother did not 

have Child ready for exchanges into Father's custody, she would forfeit some of 

her upcoming custody. Mother complains that I accorded Father "the 

opportunity lo summarily punish Mother with removal of custody lime if she 

prospectively violates custody exchange provisions." As Mother has regularly 

engaged in sending Father on wild goose chases lo retrieve Child which results 

not just in annoyance for Father but is detrimental to Child. I justifiably fashioned 

this consequence to deter further contempt which I am imposing, not Father. 

Accordingly, my findings of contempt were supported by the evidence 

adduced at trial and the sanctions imposed were appropriate. Mother's 

complaints in this regard should be dismissed 

Custody 

With regard to the reduction in her custody time, Mother claims that I 

reduced her custody time, not just due lo her contempt. but that I did so due to 

"speculations" regarding Mother's "economic dishonesty which are entirely 

unsupported by the record. which ore evidence of judicial hostifity, and which 

are simply not remedied by shortening parenting time." 

I do suspect a certain amount of economic dishonesty in light of Mother's 

claims that she is unemployed despite evidence that she is working. Bui this is not 

what led me to reduce Mother's custody time. I reduced her custody lime 

7 

30 
because my analysis of the custody factors so strongly favored Father and 

because Mother neglects Child in a number of ways - including not providing her 

with sufficient food (TR. P. 47). not attending lo Child's hygiene (TR. P. 65, 73). not 

providing her with a feeling of being cared for. leaving Child and her siblings 

unattended in hotel pools and other locations while she gambles, not assisting 

with school or homework (TR. P. 8), living in a home which even Child finds is too 

unkempt, and for causing continued drama and hostility so as to disrupt the 

feelings of security Child needs. 

After hearing the evidence. I determined that the level of strife caused by 

Mother is negatively impacting Child as she becomes more aware of it. Based 

on the testimony and evidence before me and the demeanor of the parties 

during trial, I found Mother to be responsible for the parties' volatile interactions. 

In my Opinion at 1692 WDA 2016, I wrote: 

"At trial, despite being admonished by me and her attorney. Mother coutd 

not contain her outbursts and overly dramatic reactions to testimony with 

which she disagreed. Father credibly testified that Mother purposely and 

spitefully made exchanges difficult, changing locations and limes. sometimes 

for hours, despite knowing Father was already in the car." 

I do not find Iha! much has changed in that regard. That sort of hostility. 

and volatile behavior affects children in a negative way. Child testified that 

Mother starts the fights. (TR. p. 170). Mother is mean (TR. p 171-173). and that she 

finds Mother's behavior embarrassing (TR. p. 187). 

Both Father and Child testified that Mother does not help Child with 

homework or make sure she is ready for school; Father does. On the Wednesday 

nights when Mother had Child for her mid-week visitation. she oflen did not feed 

Child dinner, she caused the exchanges to be late and chaotic. and did not 

make sure Child's homework was done. All of this resulted in a later bedtime at 

Father's house since, after gelling home late. he hod lo feed Child, bathe her. 

and make sure her homework was completed. Child was then tired when sent to 

8 

31 
school on Thursday. ITR. p. 9-13). Accordingly, I did not find it to be in Child's best 

interest to continue the Wednesday visitation with Mother. 

As lo the reduction in the remainder of Mother's custody time, I was 

particularly troubl�d by Mother's habitual neglect In addition lo the incident at 

Burger King, Child testified that, when on vacation, Mother stayed in the hotel 

while Child and her siblings were on their own at the pool (TR. o. 173-175), that 

they stayed alone in casino hotel rooms while Mother gambled /TR. p. 175-176). 

During Mother's summer custody week in July of 2019 when the Burger King 

incident occurred, credible evidence was presented that Mother was in a casino 

gambling four days out of that week (TR. p. 40-41). 

Child also testified that her Mother's home was dirty, that the dogs urinated 

and defecated throughout the house and that if smelled bad (TR. p. 180-182), 

and that she would not want her friends to come over because ii is too dirty. (TR. 

p. 183). Father testified that Child returned from Mothers unkempt and not 

bathed. Child testified that she doesn't shower at Mother's house because the 

shower is too dirty and she doesn't brush her teeth because her toothbrush is dirty. 

(TR. p 193). 

Father testified that Paternal Grandfather cooks great meals for the family. 

Child testified her Mother does not cook and that they eat McDonald's food at 

her Mother's house {TR. p. 194-1951. 

When asked what would make things better al her Mother's, Child 

responded "JI she was nicer, and the house was cleaner and she would give me 

more food that's good." ITR. p, 198). When asked if she fell safe in each parent's 

home, Child answered in the affirmative. But she said, although she felt safe, she 

did not feel "taken care of" at her Mother's. (TR. p. 2001. 

I did not find that Child was adequately taken care of al her Mother's 

either. While I would not remove Mother from Child's life entirely, as the two love 

9 

32 
each other and Child has a relationship with her siblings that should not be 

ignored. I found it was in her best interest lo have more lime ot her Father's house 

where she can teel both safe and taken care of by a parent. 

Custody Factors 

I am required to review the statutory factors enumerated at 23 Pa. C.S.A. 

5328 and apply them to the facts of the case. Of those factors, many of which 

go lo the need for stability in a child's life. I found a number favored Father. The 

need for stability and continuity is only one factor among those ot 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5328(0) that a court must consider when making a custody ruling. Moreover, the 

amount of weight that a courl places on any one factor is almost entirely 

discretionary. M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 33 J. 339 {Pa.Super. 2013). "It is within the 

trial court's purview os the finder of foci to determine which factors are most 

salient and critical in each particular case". O.G. v A.B., 234 A.3d 766, (Pa.Super.) 

)2020). In this case. I found stability to be extremely important. 

On the other hand. Father has demonstrated that he is willing to do 

whatever he con lo keep peace, even when Mother's behavior hos been 

outrageous. I found that the stability of Father's life and his care for Child makes 

his the home where Child can feel safe and cared for 

Mother argues Iha! I did not consider the negative effect of limiting Child's 

lime with her sibfings. I did consider that; I know that Child is close with her siblings. 

and I am aware that Child will not spend as much time with them under the 

current Order. As they have a close bond, I do not expect that bond to break. 

This was not an Order I entered without consideration of all the factors and 

factor 6 concerning siblings was considered. I simply gave more weight to factors 

1.2.3.4, and 13, all of which more of an effect on the stability needed in Child's 

life. And while Child did not verbalize a specific preference as is contemplated 

10 

33 
by factor 7, other than that she preferred Father's house for all holidays, Child's 

testimony demonstrated a preference for Father's custodial time. 

Statements Regarding Mental Health 

Mother claims that I "engaged in shocking speculation concerning 

Mother's medical and psychological status." On April 21, I stated. "Mom has 

been doing !he some thing over and over again expecting a different result, 

expecting some result that she fantasizes about. but she is not gelling ii and she 

doesn't seem lo understand why." (TR. 4/21 p. JO). I suggested. as I and other 

hove in the post. that Mother seek therapy. 

After Mother was removed from the remote hearing for outbursts. I did 

speculate that Mother may have a cognitive or psychological condition which is 

preventing her from changing her behavior for the better but stated that I do not 

know what the basis of that is. {TR. 4/21 p. 18). Mother has been instructed 

numerous times since 2013 to seek individual covnse�ng to gain coping skills and 

improve her interactions with Father. I offered my opinions on the matter in on 

attempt to help Mother by encouraging her to get help. Even if this could be 

interpreted as on overreach. it was not a deciding factor in my custody 

determination. It is Mother's behavior. and how it affects her child, that 

influenced my determination, along with my weighing of the custody factors. 

Evidentiary Support 

Lastly, Mother argues that my Nndings and determination of the facts ore 

not supported by the record. lri fact. the evidence I relied on to make my 

decision was the behavior of the parties and. to a great extent. Mother's own 

testimony. The testimony and evidence demonstrated that Mother left Child 

uncared for while she gambled or engaged in other activities, even when she 

was on vacation away from home with her children. That in itself supports my 

determination to reduce Mother's custody lime. 

11 

34 
There was additional testimony which supported a change in custody. 

Child testified she does not get enough lo eat at Mother's house and that ii is too 

dirty there for her to lake a shower or brush her teeth. Father testified that Mother 

continues to shout and scream al him over perceived srights. Child testified that 

Mother tells her that her Father is "a bad dad," (TR. o, 171 ). 

Moreover. Mother does not seem to recognize her own bad behavior. 

asserting that it is not she who is acting inappropriately by leaving her children 

unattended or promising gifts if Child wiD ignore Father. Instead she claims Father 

brainwashes Child, or others hope lo harm her. 

Conclusion 

In reaching my decision. I found a majority of the statutory custody factors 

heavily favored Father. I found that Child needs the stability and safety which 

Father offers. while still maintaining a relationship with the Mother she loves. 

Because I found the evidence demonstrated that, despite loving Child, Mother 

could not adequately parent her, I found Father's household provided the best 

environment for Child and that a reduction in Mother's custody time was 

warranted. My decision was based on the testimony of the parties, the evidence 

presented and my evaluation of the parties' credibility. 

Because my May 3, 2021, Order is based on on appropriate and thorough 

consideration of the statutorily mandated factors, is supported the evidence of 

record, and is lirmly In Child's best interests, it should be affirmed. 

BY THE COURT: 

tz 

35