Court Opinion

ID: 9746865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:41:39.251104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.720557
License: Public Domain

*176HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring:
I agree that we must remand this case for entry of a full opinion. I note, however, that although the Court properly acknowledges that our scope of review in custody cases “is of the broadest type,” at 628, it goes on to state that “[ajbsent an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse a hearing judge who complies with [the] requirements” of providing us “not only with a complete record, . .. but also with a complete and comprehensive “opinion which contains a thorough analysis of the record and specific reasons for the court’s ultimate decision.” At 628 (emphasis added; citations omitted). In Commonwealth ex rel. E. H. T. v. R. E. T., 285 Pa. Super. 444, 427 A.2d 1370 (1981) (Concurring Opinion), I expressed my belief “that employment of an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard [in custody cases] is wholly at odds with the broad scope of review and independent judgment which our cases command we perform and which such sensitive subject -matter merits.” 285 Pa.Super. 444-427 A.2d 1370. Consequently, I urged disavowal of “a standard which is inconsistent with both our responsibility and our actual practice of closely scrutinizing custody decisions.” Id., 285 Pa.Super. 444, 427 A.2d 1370 (footnote omitted). I continue to be of that opinion and, accordingly, disapprove of the Court’s expressed adherence to the abuse of discretion standard of review in custody cases.