Court Opinion

ID: 9384330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 16:07:26.314808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.977520
License: Public Domain

J-A04005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ANDREW S. LAUER                                   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
                                                     OF PENNSYLVANIA
                         Appellee

                    v.

LAUREN LAUER

                         Appellant                   No. 1140 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
                  Civil Division at No.: 2020-FC-000908-03

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J. and MCCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                    FILED: APRIL 3, 2023

      In this child custody dispute, Appellant, Lauren Lauer (“Mother”),

appeals from an order awarding Appellee, Andrew Lauer (“Father”), partial

physical custody over their child, S.L. (“Child”). Mother argues that the trial

court failed to address whether this award is in Child’s best interests under

the sixteen-factor test articulated in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328. We vacate the order

awarding partial physical custody to Father and remand for a new evidentiary

hearing.

      Mother and Father are the natural parents of Child who was born in

2017. On July 27, 2020, Father filed a complaint seeking custody of Child.

On February 2, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation that, inter alia,

provided Mother with primary physical custody of Child and Father with partial

physical custody of Child on alternating weekends. The same stipulation also
J-A04005-23

provided Mother sole legal custody. On March 1, 2021, the court adopted the

stipulation as a final order of custody.

      On May 28, 2021, Mother filed a petition for special relief to suspend

Father’s physical custody rights, alleging that Father possibly sexually abused

Child. The thrust of Mother’s claim was that (1) Father and Child engaged in

“sexualized play,” and (2) Child made statements that linked such play with

things she might have seen or experienced while with Father. Father filed a

responsive answer and counter-petition for contempt.

      On June 22, 2021, the court held the first of several hearings on the

parties’ petitions.   On June 23, 2021, the court entered an interim order

modifying the portion of the order relating to the form of Father’s custody

from partial physical custody to supervised physical custody, pending

completion of proceedings on Mother’s petition for special relief.            The

remainder of the March 1, 2021 order remained in place.

      On July 26, 2021, the court held a second hearing. A Lancaster County

Children   and   Youth   Services   (“CYS”)   caseworker   testified   that   CYS

investigated the sexualized play and statements Child had allegedly made in

play therapy and deemed Mother’s allegations unfounded. An Ephrata Police

Department detective testified that she conducted a criminal investigation of

the allegations, including a forensic interview with Child in which Child made

no disclosures nor used the language alleged by Mother and Child’s therapist.

The detective determined that Mother’s allegations were entirely fabricated.

                                      -2-
J-A04005-23

      On September 1, 2021, the court entered an order prescribing location

and transportation requirements for Father’s supervised partial physical

custody.

      On November 18, 2021, the court held a third hearing. Among other

witnesses, a York County CYS caseworker testified that the agency had

investigated, and deemed unfounded, Mother’s allegations.

      On December 8, 2021, the court ordered Father’s partial physical

custody to remain supervised. The court added, however, that Father would

have a basis to request reconsideration of the supervision requirement by

undergoing an evaluation and successfully completing a denial polygraph from

Pennsylvania Counseling.

      Father obtained an evaluation from Jamie Raubenstine, a Specialized

Outpatient Therapist at Triad Treatment Specialists who often performs sex

offender evaluations for courts in central Pennsylvania.         On May 2, 2022,

Raubenstine authored an assessment that Father passed a denial polygraph

and did not pose a risk or threat of harm to Child. On May 17, 2022, Father

filed a petition to reinstate partial physical custody rights.

      On July 22, 2022, the court held a hearing in which Father, Mother and

Raubenstine testified. The court admitted Raubenstine as an expert “in the

field of threat of harm evaluations with the component of denial polygraphs.”

N.T., 7/22/22, at 8. Based on information provided by Father, including but

not limited to a polygraph, Raubenstine concluded that Father did not present

a risk of harm to Child. Raubenstine emphasized that even if court had not

                                       -3-
J-A04005-23

asked for a denial polygraph, her conclusion that Father did not present a risk

of harm would have remained the same. Id. at 52.

      In an order docketed on July 27, 2022, the court changed the form of

Father’s custody from supervised physical custody to partial physical custody.

The July 27, 2022 order did not address whether this modification was in

Child’s best interests.

      On August 16, 2022, Mother filed a timely appeal to this Court from the

July 27, 2022 order. Mother did not appeal any order entered before July 27,

2022. Mother complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On August 26, 2022, the court

filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion which stated that it was not necessary to

address whether the change in the form of Father’s custody was in Child’s best

interests. Opinion, 8/26/22, at 4.

      On August 29, 2022, Mother filed an application for supersedeas to stay

the July 27, 2022 order.     On August 30, 2022, this Court granted the

application for supersedeas, stayed the July 27, 2022 order and directed the

trial court to reinstate its December 8, 2021 custody order.

      Mother raises the following issues in her appeal:

      I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a
      matter of law in failing to consider the sixteen (16) relevant
      factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5328(a)(1-16) when awarding
      Appellee/Father unsupervised partial physical custody?

      II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a
      matter of law in considering the results of polygraph examinations
      of the Appellee/Father in awarding Appellee/Father unsupervised
      partial physical custody?

                                     -4-
J-A04005-23

      III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a
      matter of law in permitting Appellee/Father’s expert witness to
      testify despite Appellant/Mother never having been provided the
      expert’s curriculum vitae prior to the hearing, preventing
      Appellant/Mother from a full and fair opportunity to properly
      challenge said expert’s qualifications?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

      The lone order under review in this appeal is the July 27, 2022 order

awarding Father partial physical custody over Child. In her first argument,

Mother asserts that this award is defective because the trial court failed to

apply the sixteen-factor “best interests” test prescribed in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

5328(a). We agree.

      In an appeal from a custody order, we apply the following scope and

standard of review:

      [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 review does not vest
      in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own
      independent determination.... Thus, an appellate court is
      empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible
      factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not
      interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in
      view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a
      gross abuse of discretion.

C.M. v. M.M., 215 A.3d 588, 591 (Pa. Super. 2019).

      In Pennsylvania, custody disputes are governed by the Child Custody

Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340. The primary focus in any custody case is

the best interests of the child. “The best-interests standard, decided on a

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

                                     -5-
J-A04005-23

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

Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      A series of provisions in the Child Custody Act are relevant to the present

custody dispute. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323, entitled “Award of Custody,” provides

in relevant part:

      (a) Type of award. After considering the factors set forth in
      section 5328 (relating to factors to consider when awarding
      custody), the court may award any of the following types of
      custody if it is in the best interest of the child:

      (1) Shared physical custody.

      (2) Primary physical custody.

      (3) Partial physical custody.

      (4) Sole physical custody.

      (5) Supervised physical custody.

      (6) Shared legal custody.

      (7) Sole legal custody.

In turn, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 provides:

      § 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody.

      (a) Factors. - In ordering any form of custody, the court shall
      determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant
      factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which
      affect the safety of the child, including the following:

      (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent
      and continuing contact between the child and another party.

      (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member
      of the party’s 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.

                                      -6-
J-A04005-23

     (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.

     (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.

                                      -7-
J-A04005-23

Id. The court must “expressly consider all of the Section 5328(a) factors”

when deciding a request to modify custody. M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 62 A.3d 331,

336 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added).

      When the court enters a custody order, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323 requires

the trial court to “delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open

court or in a written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Additionally,

      section 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory
      assessment of the sixteen Section 5328 custody factors prior to
      the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.

      In expressing the reasons for its decision, there is no required
      amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is
      required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that
      the custody decision is based on those considerations. A court’s
      explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately
      addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section 5323(d).

C.M., 215 A.3d at 592-93 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

      The court has the duty to consider Section 5328(a)’s best-interest

factors when any party requests a change in the “form of physical custody.”

C.M., 215 A.3d at 593. This duty exists “even in cases where the trial court

merely reaffirms its prior custody order.”      Id. at 593. Furthermore, we

interpret “form of custody” to mean “the seven types of custody listed at 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(a).” S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 402 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Thus, “a trial court must apply the § 5328(a) factors and issue a written

explanation of its decision when it orders any of the seven forms of custody

provided for by the [Child Custody] Act.” Id.

                                     -8-
J-A04005-23

       Consideration of the Section 5328 factors is not necessary, however,

when the custody decision “merely modifie[s] a discrete custody-related

issue” instead of changing the form of custody. M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058,

1063 (Pa. Super. 2014).         In a recent memorandum, we fleshed out when

custody disputes involve mere “discrete custody-related issues” instead of a

change to the form of custody:

       [I]t makes little sense for a trial court to analyze each of the
       sixteen 5328(a) factors when arbitrating, for example, a dispute
       over a custody-exchange location; which youth sports the children
       should play; or whether a parent should be required to have
       children’s toys, beds, or other things in his or her house. Rather,
       when read as a whole, it is apparent that the [Section] 5328(a)
       factors were designed to guide the best-interest analysis when a
       trial court is ordering which party has the right to a form of
       custody. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 403 (emphasis in original; footnote
       omitted). Thus, we have not required a trial court to address the
       Section 5328(a) factors when considering the following disputes
       between the parties: (1) “whether Father was required to be off
       from work while the Children stayed with him” during part of the
       summer; (2) which primary school Child would attend; and (3)
       whether to grant Mother permission for Child to receive the
       COVID-19 vaccination. The issue presented in the present appeal
       — how the parties will pay for Child’s therapy sessions — is the
       same type of discrete custody related issue that does not involve
       an “award of custody.” See M.O., 85 A.3d at 1063.

Bowman v. Bowman, 2022 WL 17258587, *4 (Pa. Super., Nov. 29, 2022)

(emphasis in original; footnotes omitted).1

       In the present case, the July 27, 2022 order changed Father’s custody

from supervised physical custody to partial physical custody.       This was a

____________________________________________

1 Although Bowman is not a published opinion, we may unpublished
memoranda filed by this Court after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value.
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

                                           -9-
J-A04005-23

change in the form of custody, see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(a), not a mere

modification of a discrete custody-related issue such as those catalogued in

Bowman.     Consequently, the court was required to examine whether this

change was in Child’s best interests by analyzing the sixteen Section 5328

factors. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 402. The court erred by failing to undertake this

analysis in its July 27, 2022 order or in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion.

      Our decision in C.M. confirms that a Section 5328 analysis is necessary.

There, the original child custody order awarded Mother primary physical

custody and Father supervised physical custody on alternating Saturday

afternoons. Subsequently, the court modified the custody order to provide

Father partial physical custody on the first weekend of each month from

Saturday at 10:00 a.m. through Sunday at 5:00 p.m.           Mother appealed,

objecting to the court’s failure to consider the Section 5328 factors in its

modification order. We reasoned:

      [T]he trial court modified Father’s supervised physical custody and
      removed the requirement that Mother was to supervise Father’s
      custodial period. The subject order modified the existing custody
      order by awarding Father “partial physical custody,” rather than
      “supervised physical custody.” In addition, the order increased
      Father’s custodial time by granting him overnight custody on the
      first Saturday of each month from 10:00 a.m. until Sunday at 5:00
      p.m. Erroneously, the trial court offered no explanation as to how
      Father’s partial physical custody award was in Child’s best
      interests. We reiterate that the trial court was required to
      consider Child’s best interests and assess the Section 5328(a)
      custody factors.

Id., 215 A.3d at 593-94.      Thus, we remanded the case for the court to

consider the Section 5328 factors on the record or in a written opinion. In the

                                     - 10 -
J-A04005-23

present case, as in C.M., the trial court ordered a change in the form of

Father’s custody from supervised physical custody to partial physical custody.

Therefore, the trial court was required to consider Child’s best interests and

assess the Section 5328(a) custody factors. Id.

      The trial court claims that analysis of the Section 5328 factors was

unnecessary because the “sole issue . . . was whether Father’s visitation rights

should be restored to what was stipulated to by the parties” in March 2021.

Opinion, 8/26/22, at 4. The custody rights that Father enjoyed in March 2021

were not relevant at the time of the court’s order on July 27, 2022. The only

issue on July 27, 2022 was whether to change supervised physical custody,

the form of custody then in place, to partial physical custody. This issue

required examination of the Section 5328 factors to determine what was in

Child’s best interests. C.M., 215 A.3d at 593.

      The trial court then stated that “to the extent review of the Section 5328

factor was necessary,” there “were no changes in the case dynamics” after

March 2021 “outside of the issue whether Father’s custody should be

supervised or not.” Opinion at 4. In our view, the change from supervised to

partial physical custody was a significant “change in case dynamics” that

required analysis under Section 5328. To perform this task satisfactorily, the

court must “expressly consider all of the Section 5328(a) factors” either in its

order or its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion. M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 62 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa.

                                     - 11 -
J-A04005-23

Super. 2013) (emphasis added). This analysis is missing from the trial court’s

opinion.

      Under these circumstances, we are constrained to remand this case to

the trial court for a new evidentiary hearing concerning the form of Father’s

custody.   A new hearing is necessary because Child’s best interests might

have changed between the July 27, 2022 order and the present date. Due to

the already protracted nature of this case, the hearing shall take place within

45 days after the return of the certified record to the trial court.     At the

conclusion of the new hearing, the trial court shall consider all of the Section

5328 factors to determine the proper form of Father’s custody. Our decision

to remand makes it unnecessary to review the other issues raised in Mother’s

appeal.

      Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this

memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/03/2023

                                     - 12 -