Court Opinion

ID: 9396427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:08:17.376074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.928206
License: Public Domain

J-A11034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    REBECCA L. NAKICH, NOW REBECCA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    L. COURTNEY                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1402 WDA 2022
    BART P. TERRY                              :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ALPHONSE TERRY AND GAIL TERRY              :

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Civil Division at
                          No(s): No. 509 Civil 2010

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                            FILED: MAY 22, 2023

        Rebecca L. Nakich, now Rebecca L. Courtney (Mother) appeals from the

November 4, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County

(trial court) granting partial supervised custody to Bart P. Terry (Father) of

M.B.T. (Child, born 2009).         Intervenors Alphonse and Gail Terry (Paternal

Grandparents) were ordered to supervise Father’s custody. We affirm.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11034-23

                                       I.

      We glean the following facts from the certified record.      Mother and

Father, who never married, entered into their first custody agreement for Child

in 2010 when he was 11 months old. Mother has always maintained primary

physical custody of Child and she and Father share legal custody. Due to his

struggles with drug and alcohol addiction, Father has had partial physical

custody or supervised visitation throughout Child’s life.    He has also been

subject to random hair follicle and urinalysis drug testing under the various

custody agreements.

      Mother and Father entered the most recent custody agreement in 2019

following Father’s arrest for possession of a controlled substance, possession

of drug paraphernalia and a drug-related driving under the influence (DUI)

charge. The agreement required Paternal Grandparents to supervise Father’s

custodial periods. Father was required to submit to hair follicle drug testing

on request by Mother or the Child Custody Investigation Office, and any

positive tests or alcohol or substance use during custodial periods would result

in all future custody being supervised by the Alternative Community Resource

Program (ACRP). After entering this agreement, Father tested positive for

narcotics on a hair follicle test in March 2020. He did not exercise any partial

custody of Child from that point forward.

      In August 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed a petition to intervene

requesting partial physical custody and averring that Mother had denied them

                                     -2-
J-A11034-23

contact with Child for over a year. On January 28, 2022, the parties entered

into a new custody agreement that granted Paternal Grandparents two hours

of partial physical custody of Child every other week and one phone or video

contact with Child during the off-week. Father was not permitted to be present

during Paternal Grandparents’ custodial periods. They were prohibited from

speaking about Father to Child unless he initiated the conversation.

      On April 22, 2022, Mother filed a petition to modify the custody order

alleging that Paternal Grandfather violated the custody agreement.         She

additionally filed a contempt petition alleging that Paternal Grandfather had

spoken to Child about Father in violation of the order and told Child to lie to

Mother about the conversation. The trial court denied the contempt petition,

finding no willful violation of the order. However, the parties proceeded to an

evidentiary hearing on the modification petition on October 24, 2022. At the

hearing, Mother sought to terminate Paternal Grandparents’ periods of

custody.   The trial court stated at the beginning of the hearing that even

though Father had not filed his own modification petition, it would consider

modifying the prior custody order to allow Father to have supervised visitation

through Paternal Grandparents. The trial court noted its concern that Child

had been effectively isolated from Father and Father’s family for a long period

of time. Mother conceded that the trial court could modify Father’s custody

following the hearing if the evidence was so warranted, but opposed any

modification to the requirement that visitation be supervised by ACRP.

                                     -3-
J-A11034-23

      The trial court began by speaking to Child about his preferences in

camera. Child was 13 years old and had last visited Father approximately 2.5

years prior at a supervised visit with Paternal Grandparents. Child was still

visiting Paternal Grandparents every other week and said that he did not ask

them about Father because he did not like him or want to see him. Child said

he stopped seeing Father when Father failed a hair follicle test, which Child

learned about from Mother and her counsel. When pressed by the trial court,

Child said that he may eventually want to learn more about Father but was

not interested in doing so at that time. He could not explain why he did not

want to develop a relationship with Father but denied that Mother would be

opposed to supervised contact. He did not think Paternal Grandparents could

supervise visits because Father had failed his hair follicle test when they were

responsible for supervision previously.    When the trial court asked if Child

thought Paternal Grandparents could not protect him during visits, he could

not answer. He maintained that Mother would not be upset if Child said he

wanted to visit with Father. When asked how he felt about the current custody

arrangement, Child said that he did not like it or want to visit with Paternal

Grandparents. Child understood that the hair follicle test did not indicate that

Father was intoxicated during periods of custody and said that Father had

never done anything during custodial periods that had concerned him.

      Next, Mother testified that she and Child live with her husband of ten

years and their two children. Child also had a half-sibling on Father’s side.

                                     -4-
J-A11034-23

Mother had been Child’s primary custodian for his entire life, and in Child’s

early years, the custody schedule was designed around preschool and work,

with both sets of grandparents watching Child throughout the week. After

Child began kindergarten, Father had custodial periods two evenings after

school and on alternating weekends and Paternal Grandparents would pick up

Child on some of those days. Father had been employed with a carpenters’

union throughout Child’s life.

      Mother testified that the custody schedule became more difficult and

Child suffered emotionally beginning in 2016 when Father separated from his

then-wife. Child was upset about losing Father’s wife from his life. Mother

said that drug abuse had always been an issue in the custody case, and that

she was not aware of the extent of Father’s addiction until she was pregnant

with Child. Father had been charged with multiple DUIs as a result of drug

and alcohol use. While the first custody agreement provided for random drug

testing, Mother did not believe the Child Custody Investigation Office had ever

tested him. She had filed her petition to enforce the order after observing

signs that Father was using again in 2017. At that time, his hair follicle test

was positive for methamphetamine, cocaine and amphetamines.             Father

continued unsupervised visitation between 2017 and 2019.

      Mother testified that she had asked Paternal Grandparents to supervise

the visits voluntarily and they declined to do so. She had become concerned

because Father’s health appeared to be worsening.        On one occasion, he

                                     -5-
J-A11034-23

missed a custodial period with Child because he attempted to pick up his

daughter while intoxicated and his ex-wife required him to obtain an alcohol

screen pursuant to their custody order.      Mother later learned that he was

planning to retrieve Child for their visit after picking up his daughter.

        Father was arrested in 2019 for possession of a controlled substance,

possession of drug paraphernalia and DUI while he was on his way to pick up

Child. At that time, Paternal Grandmother told Mother that they could not

prove Father was driving under the influence because he refused the blood

test.    Mother asserted that Paternal Grandparents have both repeatedly

denied that Father has a drug problem, have called her derogatory names and

have insulted her in front of Child.

        Ultimately, Paternal Grandparents were ordered to supervise Father’s

custodial periods in 2019. Father then tested positive once again for narcotics

and, as a result, his custody time was to be supervised by ACRP. Mother

testified that this sanction was included in the custody agreement because she

was concerned Paternal Grandparents would not appropriately supervise the

visits. She said they had previously allowed Father to take Child snowboarding

when they were supposed to be supervising. She was concerned that Child

would be exposed to dangerous narcotics if left unsupervised with Father.

After Father tested positive for narcotics in March 2020, he did not exercise

any periods of supervised custody, despite being able to do so through ACRP.

                                       -6-
J-A11034-23

      Mother said that at the time of the hearing, she believed Father was

unemployed and he was not paying child support. She believed that visitation

at ACRP cost $45 per visit. She said that he occasionally spoke with Child on

the phone and had contacted him four times in the ten months prior to the

hearing. Father did attend Child’s baseball and basketball games. Mother

said Paternal Grandparents texted her in May 2020 asking to see Child, and

she responded that she was concerned that they could not keep Child safe

and would not acknowledge Father’s addiction or hold him accountable for his

behavior. Mother said that Paternal Grandmother then tried to reach out to

Child directly and responded to Mother by blaming her for the situation.

      Mother ultimately told Paternal Grandparents they could visit Child at

Mother’s home or speak with him on the phone.          They visited briefly on

Halloween, Christmas and Easter to drop off gifts and Child spoke with them

on the phone several times.     Paternal Grandmother brought Father to the

Christmas visit despite the order requiring his custody time be supervised by

ACRP.    Mother said Child was confused and angry after seeing Father

unexpectedly at Christmas.

      In the spring of 2021, Mother received a letter from Paternal

Grandparents’ counsel asking for visitation with Child under Father’s former

custody schedule. She and Paternal Grandparents then argued on the phone

and Paternal Grandmother insisted that the hair follicle tests had been invalid.

She said that they had done nothing wrong and Paternal Grandfather said that

                                     -7-
J-A11034-23

a court should resolve the matter. Mother testified that she said she wanted

them to have a relationship with Child if they could acknowledge Father’s

struggles with addiction.

      Mother entered as an exhibit a poem Child wrote about Father in school

in which he described worrying about Father and wishing that Father would

get better for him and his half-sister. Mother believed Child would be uneasy

if he began visiting with Father again without any proof that Father was sober.

She testified that Child took a class in sixth grade about drugs and alcohol and

asked Mother what substance Father used. He became very upset when she

told him Father used methamphetamine and wanted to know why Father was

not getting better or getting any help with his addiction. Mother believed that

Father had avoided treatment for his addiction because Paternal Grandparents

enabled him by performing custodial duties for him and hiding information

about his drug use and criminal charges from Mother.

      Mother testified that she encouraged contact between Child and Father

until she began to suspect drug and alcohol use was affecting his ability to

care for Child. At seven years old, Child told Mother that Father would sleep

throughout weekend visits and that Paternal Grandmother would have to wake

him up. In the spring and summer prior to the evidentiary hearing, Father

would attend Child’s sporting events and fall asleep on the sidelines. Father

had been using Suboxone since he met Mother and throughout Child’s life.

                                     -8-
J-A11034-23

      Mother testified that she has not gotten along well with Paternal

Grandparents due to their failure to acknowledge Father’s addiction. She did

not feel that they respected her role as Child’s mother. She said Child had

reported that Father drank alcohol in the car while transporting him on one

occasion.   Father had not produced a negative drug test since he stopped

seeing Child in March 2020 and had not performed parental duties other than

paying child support since that time.     Around that same time, Father sent

Child a message blaming Mother for separating them.

      On cross-examination, Mother conceded that Child was once close with

Paternal Grandparents but stated that the relationship changed when Father

was arrested. She believed that Child felt lied to about Father’s addiction.

Child attended therapy prior to Father’s divorce and still spoke with the social

worker at his school to discuss his feelings about the custody situation.

      Mother admitted that hair follicle tests only indicate that a substance

was consumed within 90 to 120 days prior to the test, and that she could not

say with certainty that Father was under the influence during any specific

custodial period. She said that she wanted Paternal Grandparents to form a

relationship with Child independent of Father and to stop speaking about

Father and excusing his behavior when they were with Child. She testified

that Child is stressed by visits with Paternal Grandparents and expresses that

he does not wish to visit or call them.

                                     -9-
J-A11034-23

      Mother did not believe Paternal Grandparents would know if Father

brought narcotics into their home or would protect Child from that influence.

She did not think they supervised visits appropriately in the past because they

would not always remain physically present throughout the visit and would

hide information from Mother when Father was using drugs. When asked if

she would allow them to supervise custody if they subjected Father to

breathalyzer and urine screens, she replied that she would not because they

still could not understand the danger Father posed to Child.

      When questioned by the trial court, Mother testified that she normally

believes it would be in a child’s best interest to have relationships with both

sides of the family. However, she felt in this situation a relationship could be

dangerous and would cause mental harm to Child. She believed that Paternal

Grandparents needed treatment for co-dependency and to participate in

Father’s treatment in order to safely continue the two-hour visits with Child

every other week.

      Paternal Grandmother testified next.        She was retired and had

previously taught physical education and special education from 1972 until

after Child was born. She did not have a criminal record. She testified that

early in Child’s life, she and Paternal Grandfather would frequently watch Child

throughout the day while Mother and Father worked but the custody schedule

became more formal in 2016 after Father’s divorce.        In 2019, Father was

convicted of DUI and was sentenced to house arrest that was set to begin in

                                     - 10 -
J-A11034-23

March 2020. Around the same time, he failed his hair follicle drug test and he

had not seen Child since.

      After the failed drug test, Paternal Grandmother testified that they

waited a couple of months before retaining an attorney to pursue custodial

time with Child. She wanted to see Child for longer periods, as the two-hour

custody windows did not leave them enough time to do more than share a

meal. She said they attend Child’s baseball games but had to seek out the

schedule themselves because Mother refused to share it with them.

Communication with Mother was poor and Mother would ignore her messages

requesting phone calls with Child. She said that they try not to sit near Mother

when attending Child’s games and denied that Father has ever fallen asleep

at a game. She contended that Father was just looking at his cell phone.

      Paternal Grandmother said that on the day Father was arrested for DUI,

Paternal Grandfather had picked Child up from school and Father was driving

home from work to visit him.      When Father did not come home, Paternal

Grandfather took Child to his baseball practice and Paternal Grandmother

eventually received a phone call alerting her that Father had been arrested for

DUI after he was found sleeping in his car. They then went to retrieve Father

and left Child with his step-father at practice. Paternal Grandmother said she

did not notify Mother of the DUI at that time because it was “blown out of

proportion” and that nothing could be proven because Father refused the

blood test. N.T., 10/24/22, at 160-61.

                                     - 11 -
J-A11034-23

      Paternal Grandmother acknowledged that Father had struggled with

heroin addiction out of high school.     He attended an intensive outpatient

rehabilitation program and she attended family nights with him during that

time. A couple of years later he went back for an inpatient program. Since

2019, he had been attending counseling two to three times per month and

saw a doctor at a rehabilitation facility once or twice a month where he is drug

tested. Paternal Grandmother testified that Father would be expelled from

the program if he failed a drug test. Additionally, she randomly drug-tested

Father with over-the-counter urinalysis tests. She denied enabling Father’s

addiction and said that she and Paternal Grandfather provide support so that

he could manage fatherhood and work. She said that she learned to identify

signs of intoxication and was very attuned to when Father was using narcotics.

She said that she would not allow Father to see Child if she thought he was

using drugs during any custodial time she supervised.

      Paternal Grandmother said that she contacted Mother to arrange visits

with Child over various holidays since March 2020 but was only allowed brief

visits when she dropped off gifts. She believed that Child was quieter when

Mother was present for phone calls and visits and more talkative when she

was not. They have a bedroom for Child to use when he visits overnight.

      On cross-examination, Paternal Grandmother testified that Father

began Suboxone treatment in 2004 and continued to use it 18 years later.

She said it was a maintenance drug that had kept him alive through that time.

                                     - 12 -
J-A11034-23

She was aware that he tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine in

2017, which was related to his DUI. She admitted that she could not always

tell when he was using methamphetamine but would look for signs such as

glassy eyes. She said that when he was charged with DUI, he was not driving

to pick up Child but rather was going to meet him at her home. She said that

Father had not seen Child since March 2020 because Mother had prohibited it,

but admitted that Father was entitled to supervised visits at ACRP. She said

supervised visits were difficult to schedule and that ACRP charged $70 per

hour for visits. Paternal Grandparents were lending him money to meet his

child support obligations but he had not asked for money for visitation.

      Paternal Grandmother acknowledged that Father had not produced a

negative drug screen but contended that he was taking a medication for

depression that produced false positives for amphetamines. She believed that

he was doing well and not using illegal narcotics at the time of the hearing.

He was still on parole for his most recent DUI.

      Paternal Grandfather testified that he was also retired but had

previously worked as a construction superintendent and football official. He

currently worked as a ski instructor and had no criminal history. He said that

he had been very close with Child when they had periods of custody in the

past and enjoyed attending Child’s practices, games and school recitals.

      Paternal Grandfather did not deny that Father suffered from addiction

but said that he was currently doing well in regular counseling. He said that

                                    - 13 -
J-A11034-23

Father is drug tested regularly and that he did not understand why the hair

follicle tests were not consistent with his other drug analysis tests. He said

they were attempting to change his prescription medications so that he could

pass the drug tests. He had not observed Father under the influence during

any custodial periods and said that he had never suspected that Father

brought illegal substances into his home.

      Paternal Grandfather said that he wanted to have a regular role in Child’s

life again. He acknowledged that there was some hostility in his relationship

with Mother but denied making any derogatory comments about Mother in

front of Child. On cross-examination, Paternal Grandfather said that Father

kept getting false positive hair follicle tests because of his prescription

medications. He believed Mother was influencing Child to say that he did not

want to visit with Paternal Grandparents.

      Finally, Father testified that he was currently laid off from his job as a

carpenter but had recently had his driver’s license reinstated. He said that he

could not currently afford to pay for supervised visitation through ACRP and

when he was employed, his work schedule prevented him from scheduling

visitation. He had been sober from illegal narcotics for over a year and was

regularly attending counseling.     He was attempting to change his anxiety

medication to prevent false positive results on his hair follicle tests. He denied

falling asleep at Child’s sporting events or ever using alcohol or narcotics at

supervised visits with Child. He had not used drugs in Paternal Grandparents’

                                     - 14 -
J-A11034-23

home or brought them into their home since he was a child. He said that he

would like to resume visitation with Child supervised by Paternal Grandparents

and said that he currently has visitation with his daughter.

      On cross-examination, Father admitted that he had never called ACRP

to try and schedule visitation but had assumed that they would only be

available in normal business hours. He said that he still took Suboxone but

had discontinued Wellbutrin because he believed it was responsible for the

false positive drug tests for amphetamines. He had recently begun taking

medication for ADHD, for which he was diagnosed in 2018.            He had been

employed for a couple of months in 2022, nine months in 2021 and off-and-

on in 2020. He denied having custody of Child while under the influence and

said that he took breathalyzer tests prior to visits with Child in the past. He

said that Paternal Grandparents would be able to tell if he was under the

influence.

      On questioning by the trial court, Father asserted that when he produced

false positive tests through his rehabilitative services, they sent the sample

for further testing in a laboratory. He said that if he were actively using illegal

narcotics, he would be terminated from the program. He agreed that he would

have to work to reestablish a relationship with Child and would not be able to

immediately exercise unsupervised overnight or weekend custody.

      Following the reception of the evidence, the trial court entered an order

modifying the prior custody agreements.        The trial court explained that it

                                      - 15 -
J-A11034-23

wanted to create a new custody order that would allow Father visitation

supervised by Paternal Grandparents in order to facilitate a relationship

between Child and Father’s family. Accordingly, Father was granted partial

custody to be supervised by Paternal Grandparents one day every other

weekend from noon to 7 PM, and increasing to one day every weekend

beginning in the summer. At least one of the Paternal Grandparents were

required to be physically present during visitation and Father was required to

be present unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Holiday schedules would

be mutually-agreed upon by the parties and all other terms of the previous

agreements would remain in effect.

        Mother timely appealed and she and the trial court complied with Pa.

R.A.P. 1925.

                                               II.

        On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred and abused its

discretion by (1) granting Father periods of partial custody; (2) determining

that Paternal Grandparents could appropriately supervise Father’s custody;

and (3) crafting a custody order that denied Mother any complete weekend of

custodial time beginning in the summer.1

____________________________________________

1   When reviewing a custody order,

        our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is an abuse of
        discretion. We must accept findings of the trial court that are
        supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 16 -
J-A11034-23

        When deciding a petition to modify custody, the trial court must conduct

a thorough analysis of the best interests of the child based on the relevant

Section 5328(a) factors2 set forth in the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5321

____________________________________________

        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.

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

2   The relevant factors are:

        (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)(1) and (2)
        (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.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 17 -
J-A11034-23

et seq. See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 80 (Pa. Super. 2011). However, “[i]t

is within the trial court’s purview as the finder of fact to determine which

____________________________________________

       (6) The child’s sibling relationships.

       (7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s
       maturity and judgment.

       (8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other
       parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable
       safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.

       (9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,
       consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for
       the child’s emotional needs.

       (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).

                                          - 18 -
J-A11034-23

factors are most salient and critical in each particular case.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G.,

63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013). “The best-interests standard, decided

on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect

upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being.”

Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

                                        A.

      In her first argument, Mother highlights that Father has been addicted

to narcotics since high school, used Suboxone for 18 years, continued to fail

drug tests and incurred criminal charges as a result of his addictions. She

contends that he continued to abuse drugs when Paternal Grandparents were

supervising his custody of Child and then declined to visit with Child at all after

ACRP took over responsibility for supervision. She contends that he regularly

missed visits with Child or slept through them and that he only had brief phone

contact with Child four times in the ten months preceding the evidentiary

hearing. She argues that the trial court disregarded Child’s preference not to

see Father until he was sober.      She maintains that the trial court ignored

Paternal Grandparents’ prior failures to supervise Father and did not

acknowledge that Father was at fault for declining to exercise his custodial

rights since 2020.

      Mother cites no law in support of her position, nor does she couch her

argument within the terms of our well-settled standard of review. See Pa.

R.A.P. 2111(a), 2119(a), (b), (c) & (d); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462,

                                      - 19 -
J-A11034-23

465 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[T]his Court will not review a claim unless it is

developed in the argument section of an appellant’s brief, and supported by

citations to relevant authority.”). Rather, she recasts the evidence by largely

crediting her own testimony and asserts that because the trial court found no

custody factor weighing in Father’s favor, any contact with Father would not

be in Child’s best interest. Our review of the trial court’s opinion reveals that

it carefully weighed all of the required factors and did not downplay the

severity of Father’s addiction, but ultimately concluded that it was in Child’s

best interest to develop a relationship with Father and his family.                 The

supervised custody with Paternal Grandparents balanced the need to ensure

Child’s safety and Father’s right to maintain a relationship with Child.

      As Mother recognizes, the trial court addressed each of the statutory

custody factors in its opinion in support of the order and found that many of

them favored her continuing as primary custodian. The trial court agreed with

Mother that Father was in active addiction and that his excuses for not

exercising custody     for   over   two   years   were    incredible,    as Paternal

Grandparents    were   supporting    him    financially   during   his    periods    of

unemployment.      See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11/4/22, at 7.

However, the trial court found Mother’s insistence on allowing Child to dictate

the visitation schedule with Paternal Grandparents and Father to be

unreasonable and not in his best interest. It was concerned that Mother had

isolated Child from Father’s side of the family and concluded that a 13-year-

                                      - 20 -
J-A11034-23

old should not have sole discretion to decide if or when to have a relationship

with Father and Paternal Grandparents.

      Further, the trial court repeatedly noted that it did not find Mother

completely credible and that her grievances against Father and Paternal

Grandparents were not supported in fact. Id. at 8 (“Mother’s expression of

concern regarding the safety of the child is not justified. Mother’s hostility

towards the paternal grandparents and the father is prevalent and the

historical blame towards paternal grandparents for supporting father has been

misinterpreted as enabling his addiction.”); id. at 10 (“We find that mother

has been unduly restrictive in dismissing opportunities for the paternal

grandparents to visit with the child and has misinterpreted paternal

grandparents’ efforts to support their son’s addiction reform as enabling the

drug use.”); id. at 13 (“Any expression of a desire to include the paternal

grandparents would be met with perceived disappointment by mother, which

the child wishes to avoid. Testimony revealed that the remote conversations

the child had with paternal grandparents were stilted with mother’s presence

as opposed to when the visitation took place in person with paternal

grandparents.”); id. (“[M]other has been adamant about creating false

narratives about the potential risk factors of child’s interaction with the

paternal grandparents.”).    Thus, while the trial court agreed that Father

continued to struggle with his addiction and was not ready to resume

                                    - 21 -
J-A11034-23

unsupervised contact with Child, it also concluded that Mother’s fears about

Child’s safety during supervised visitation were overblown.

       This finding was supported by the record, as there was no evidence

presented at the hearing that Paternal Grandparents had ever allowed Father

to be in contact with Child while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.3 The

trial court noted that both Paternal Grandparents had held jobs that required

clearances for working with children and credited Paternal Grandmother’s

explanation that she had learned the signs of drug use by participating in

family sessions in one of Father’s treatment programs. While the trial court

held that Father would have to work toward unsupervised periods of custody,

it concluded that it was not in Child’s best interest to be cut off completely

from Father while he was in recovery.

       Merely holding that most of the custody factors favor Mother does not

lead to the inexorable conclusion that Father and Paternal Grandparents

should be denied all contact with Child. To the contrary, the trial court focused

on whether it was in Child’s best interest to foster a relationship with Father,

Paternal Grandparents and the rest of Father’s extended family, as is required

by the Child Custody Act. E.D., supra. Sitting as the fact-finder, the trial

____________________________________________

3Mother repeatedly references Father’s failed hair follicle test in March 2020,
but acknowledges that the test only indicates that he ingested substances at
some point in the 90 days prior. The test simply does not establish that Father
was under the influence of narcotics during a supervised visit with Child and
Paternal Grandparents.

                                          - 22 -
J-A11034-23

court was entitled to assess the credibility of Mother, Father, Child and

Paternal Grandparents and determine that Child’s best interests were served

by attempting to foster a bond with Father and his side of the family and that

Child would not be endangered by supervised visits with Father. O.G. v. A.B.,

234 A.3d 766, 777 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted) (explaining that the

weight the trial court grants to the various custody factors “almost entirely

discretionary.”). The trial court’s factual findings are supported by the record,

and we cannot conclude that the relatively small amount of supervised

visitation granted to Father and Paternal Grandparents—seven hours every

other week, increasing to weekly in the summer—was an abuse of discretion.

The issue merits no relief.

                                         B.

      Next, Mother argues that the trial court erred by finding that Paternal

Grandparents could appropriately supervise Father’s periods of custody. She

maintains that Paternal Grandparents previously refused to supervise Father,

despite exercising his periods of custody in his stead.        She highlights that

Father   incurred   criminal   charges    resulting   in   Paternal   Grandparents

supervising his visits by necessity, but continued to test positive for illegal

narcotics. She contends that Paternal Grandparents failed to protect Child

because they did not notice or acknowledge Father’s drug use and continued

to believe that his drug test results were false positives. She argues that the

testimony at the hearing established that Mother and Paternal Grandparents

                                     - 23 -
J-A11034-23

cannot communicate effectively and that Paternal Grandparents would

continue to hide information about Father’s addiction.         She claims that

Paternal Grandparents cannot tell when Father is under the influence or

actively using narcotics and, thus, cannot safely supervise his custody of

Child.4

       Again, Mother’s argument attacks the trial court’s factual findings, as

she focuses on whether Paternal Grandparents acknowledge Father’s

addiction, enable his behavior or can recognize when Father is under the

influence of narcotics.        After viewing all the testimony, the trial court

specifically concluded that if they were appointed as supervisors of Father’s

custody, Paternal Grandparents would not allow Child to be placed in danger.

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11/4/22, at 11, 15. Paternal Grandparents

agreed that Father struggles with addiction and supported his recovery by

driving him to counseling, lending him money for child support and attending

family treatment sessions with him in the past. Moreover, they had a close

relationship with Child in the past and endeavored to maintain a presence in

____________________________________________

4 In closing, Mother makes a cursory, one-sentence assertion that by finding
that Paternal Grandparents were not “parties” to the proceeding, the trial
court “avoid[ed] measuring his conclusions against the clear and convincing
evidentiary standard required to defeat Mother’s objections to their role.”
Mother’s Brief at 43. As she has failed to develop this claim in any meaningful
fashion, it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217,
1229 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that failure to include citation to relevant
authority or to develop issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review
results in waiver of claim).

                                          - 24 -
J-A11034-23

his life even without regular visitation.           While Mother speculated about

whether Father could bring narcotics into Paternal Grandparents’ home or they

could recognize signs of his intoxication, there was ultimately no evidence that

Paternal Grandparents had ever allowed Father to exercise custody or

visitation with Child while under the influence.5 The trial court determined

that Paternal Grandparents are able to recognize when Father is under the

influence of any substance and would appropriately supervise Child to shield

him from any risk posed by Father’s addiction during the relatively short

periods of custody. We discern no abuse of discretion.

                                               C.

       Finally, Mother provides one paragraph of argument in support of her

claim that the trial court erred by denying her any full weekends of custody

beginning in the summer of 2023. She complains that the trial court deprived

Mother of full weekends of custody in favor of Father, even though Father had

declined to exercise custody for over two years prior to the hearing.

       In addressing this claim, the trial court noted that the modified custody

order left in place all provisions of the prior orders that were not affected by

the modifications.      See Order, 11/4/22, at 18.       A previous consent order

____________________________________________

5 Paternal Grandmother testified that she administered home drug tests to
Father in the past prior to periods of custody. The failed hair follicle tests that
Mother relies upon could not establish that Father used narcotics while
exercising custody of Child, or even that he had been under the influence in
the presence of Paternal Grandparents.

                                          - 25 -
J-A11034-23

between the parties included a provision allowing each parent two non-

consecutive weeks of vacation throughout the year that would supersede the

other provisions of the custody and holiday schedule. See Order of Court,

10/5/17, at 4-5. Thus, the trial court noted that Mother is still entitled to full

weekend custody during her vacation time.         Mother did not address this

argument in her brief, nor did she explain why it was an abuse of discretion

to allow Father to see Child for seven hours each weekend when she retains

all other periods of primary physical custody. No relief is due.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/22/2023

                                     - 26 -