J-A03036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
E.M., FATHER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v.
D.Z., MOTHER
Appellee No. 2086 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered June 8, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2013-61073
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 10, 2016
Appellant, E.M. ("Father") appeals from the order entered in the Bucks
County Court of Common Pleas, which granted primary physical custody of
the parties' minor child, J.Z. ("Child"), to Appellee, D.Z. ("Mother") subject
to periods of partial custody by Appellant. We affirm in part but vacate and
remand for clarification of the order.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION OR COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT AWARDED [MOTHER], PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY BASED UPON UNREASONABLE CONCLUSIONS IN LIGHT OF THE TRIAL COURT'S SUSTAINABLE FINDINGS OF FACT? J-A03036-16
THE [TRIAL] COURT'S AWARD OF PRIMARY CUSTODY TO [MOTHER] WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED UNDER THE CUSTODY FACTORS ENUMERATED IN 23 PA.C.S. § 5328(A), THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WEIGHTED IN FAVOR OF [FATHER], AND WAS THUS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE [TRIAL] COURT'S SUSTAINABLE FINDINGS OF FACT.
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT'S ORDER AWARDING PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO [MOTHER] WAS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE RECORD AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE BECAUSE, WHEN CONSIDERING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, THE [TRIAL] COURT FAILED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO [MOTHER]'S ONGOING ATTEMPTS TO DEPRIVE THE MINOR CHILD OF FATHER'S CARE AND AFFECTION, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC IN LIGHT OF THE [TRIAL] COURT'S SIMULTANEOUS CONCLUSION THAT [MOTHER] LIED TO AUTHORITIES AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS ABOUT FATHER, AND HAS NOT AND WILL NOT FURTHER THE CHILD'S RELATIONSHIP WITH FATHER?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING [MOTHER] PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE PARTIES' MINOR CHILD, WHEN SUCH AWARD WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL, AND IS CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD?
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO MAKE A FINDING OF SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY BASED UPON ITS SUSTAINABLE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED?
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION OR COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN FINDING THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILD TO CHANGE THE CHILD'S NAME TO INCLUDE FATHER'S SURNAME, IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S SUSTAINABLE FINDINGS?
(Father's Brief at 4-5).
J-A03036-16
Our scope and standard of review of a custody order are as follows:
[T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it.... However, this broad scope of