Court Opinion

ID: 9838694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 16:09:11.403393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:45.675634
License: Public Domain

J-A10022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  KELLY HENNIGAN                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  PATRICK HENNIGAN                             :
                                               :
                       Appellee                :      No. 3193 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 17, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
                     Civil Division at No(s): 2021-10052-CU

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                              FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

       Appellant, Kelly Hennigan (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in

the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded Mother and

Appellee, Patrick Hennigan (“Father”), shared physical and legal custody of

their minor child, C.H. (“Child”). We affirm.

       Mother and Father married in May 2006 and Child was born in May 2011.

The parties divorced in August 2018 and subsequently developed a separation

agreement where the parties shared equal physical and legal custody of Child.

This agreement was in place for close to five years. On December 22, 2021,

Mother filed the current custody complaint seeking primary physical custody

of Child during the school year from Sunday through Thursday nights and

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A10022-23

alternating weekends.

      On October 5, 2022, the trial court conducted a custody hearing. At

that time, Child was eleven years old and in the sixth grade. Both parties

agreed that they did not wish for Child to testify. Mother testified that she

agreed to the original 50/50 custody agreement because she wanted Father

to be present in Child’s life and wanted Child to have equal access to both his

parents.     Nevertheless, Mother had concerns about Father’s parenting

decisions which persisted over the years, prompting the filing of the instant

complaint.

      Mother further testified that she had concerns about the 50/50 custody

arrangement because she carried the brunt of the responsibility of looking

after Child’s education, hygiene, extracurricular activities, and medical

appointments while Mother and Father were married. Mother maintained that

she continued to be primarily responsible for these aspects of Child’s care

despite Father having shared equal custody since their divorce.        Mother

testified that Child bathes on average every other day at her house and raised

concerns that Father does not require Child to bathe while in his custody even

when Child is at Father’s residence for five-day stretches. Mother stated that

she fears Child may be bullied at school if the hygiene issues persist. Mother

further testified that Child gets an average of nine hours of sleep at Mother’s

house while only getting an average of roughly seven hours at Father’s house.

Mother also raised concerns that Child spends too much time on his iPad while

                                     -2-
J-A10022-23

at Father’s residence. Mother testified that she restricts Child’s screen time

to two hours while at her house, but the iPad usage history shows that Child

uses the iPad for over four hours on average at Father’s house.

      Additionally, Mother claimed that Father has failed to take an interest in

Child’s education, medical appointments, and extracurricular activities.

Mother testified that Father does not attend back-to-school nights or

parent/teacher conferences. Mother also stated that Father is not enrolled in

the online portals and email lists that provide information about school

activities and assignments. This resulted in instances where Child fell behind

on assignments and Father was unaware.           Mother also stated that she

schedules all of Child’s medical and dental appointments and Father has

attended very few of them. Mother expressed that she also takes charge of

signing Child up for activities, such as music lessons, swimming lessons, and

sports. Mother noted instances where Child missed lessons or games when

he was in Father’s custody. Mother also raised concerns about Child’s living

conditions at Father’s residence.     Prior to Mother’s filing of the custody

complaint, Father lived in a one-bedroom apartment and Child often slept in

a king size bed with Father.     Mother also testified that Father consumed

alcohol to excess during their marriage and she was worried that Father

continued to do so while Child is in Father’s custody. Mother stated that Child

has a strong relationship with Father, and she did not want to interfere with

Father’s relationship with Child, but she believes Child will succeed more if his

                                      -3-
J-A10022-23

activities and hygiene are maintained with her during the school year.

      On cross-examination, Mother acknowledged that many of her concerns

had been addressed since she filed the custody complaint. Child is clean when

he returns from Father’s house and Child is going to bed at roughly the same

time at Father’s house as he does at Mother’s house. Father signed Child up

for Boy Scouts and guitar lessons and Child enjoys participating in these

activities. Father has also purchased a house and Child has his own room at

the new house. Mother also acknowledged the results of two hair follicle tests

that Father underwent which showed that Father had low to moderate

consumption of alcohol. Mother further testified that Child is doing well in

school, and she has no concerns about his physical or mental health.

      Father testified that he moved from Connecticut to Pennsylvania in 2018

because Mother got a new job in Pennsylvania and he wanted to remain close

to Child. Father testified that at the time, Mother had to co-sign on his one-

bedroom apartment lease because of Father’s financial constraints. Father

owns a business and due to the financial strain of growing a business, he was

unable to afford a bigger apartment for a period of time. Father testified that

he often slept on the couch to allow Child a more restful sleep.       Father’s

business has since become successful, and Father was able to purchase a

home where Child has his own room. Father’s house is only five miles away

from Mother’s residence and within Child’s school district.

      Regarding Mother’s concerns, Father stated that Child bathes on

                                     -4-
J-A10022-23

average every other day or every three days when he is in Father’s care.

Father testified that every day when Child gets home from school, he asks

Child about assignments that need to be completed. Child is typically very

responsible about completing his assignments and will often work on his

homework on his own next to Father while Father is working. If Child has

questions or asks for help, Father will assist him. Father stated that he is

signed up to the school portals and email lists that provide information about

school activities and assignments. Regarding Mother’s claim that Child missed

assignments while in Father’s care, Father stated that both Mother and Father

missed the assignment in question due to the confusion that arose when

distance learning began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Father testified that

he places a great deal of importance on Child’s education and Child is doing

very well in school.   Father further testified that Child does not spend an

excessive amount of time on his iPad. Child often plays video games with his

friends and may leave the game on standby mode so that he can maintain his

place in the game. Child also goes to bed at around 9:30 p.m. at Father’s

house.

     Regarding medical appointments, Father stated that Mother schedules

and attends most of Child’s appointments because Mother wants to oversee

the details. Father noted an instance where he scheduled an appointment for

Child and Mother unilaterally cancelled the appointment because it was

scheduled during school hours. Father stated that he would be happy to take

                                    -5-
J-A10022-23

on more shared responsibility for appointments if Mother so desired. Father

also submitted to hair follicle tests in March 2022 and July 2022, and both

tests demonstrate low to moderate consumption of alcohol.

      Father testified he has a strong bond with Child and they discuss

everything from school, navigating friendships, current events, to shared

interests.   Father and Child share a love of music which Father fosters by

getting Child a Spotify account, signing him up for guitar lessons, and

discussing music that they like. Father also does activities with Child on the

weekends, such as going bowling, going to the pool, playing sports and taking

him to amusement parks.       Father acknowledged that he has a different

parenting style than Mother but maintains that he plays an important role in

Child’s life. Father stated that Child is doing well under the current custody

schedule due to his close relationship with both parents, and reducing Father’s

custodial time to four days every two weeks would be disruptive and shocking

to Child.

      The trial court entered a custody order on November 17, 2022, awarding

Father and Mother shared legal and physical custody, maintaining the 50/50

custody schedule to which Child is accustomed.       On December 16, 2022,

                                     -6-
J-A10022-23

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.1

       Mother raises the following issues for our review:

          1. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in denying
             [Mother’s] request for primary physical custody after
             consideration of the relevant factors as set forth at 23
             Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 when the Honorable Trial Court’s own
             findings at trial favor Mother?

          2. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in weighing
             Custody factor (a)(1) under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328, “Which
             party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and
             continuing contact between the child and another party,”
             in Father’s favor when it did not analyze Father’s actions
             in this regard or provide any basis for this finding?

          3. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in failing to
             weigh in Mother’s favor Custody factor (a)(4) under 23
             Pa.C.S.A. § 5328, “The need for stability and continuity
             in the child’s education, family life and community life,”
             when the Honorable Trial Court failed to consider
             testimonial and documentary evidence of Father’s
             inability to understand or keep up with the child’s
             education and extracurricular activities and when the
             Honorable Trial Court found it uncertain that Father
____________________________________________

1  On March 7, 2023, Father filed an application to dismiss in this Court,
claiming that Mother failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2154(c)(1) (regarding
filing and service of designation of parts of record which party intends to
reproduce and brief statement of issues which party intends to present for
review). On March 9, 2023, Mother filed a response acknowledging her
noncompliance, but emphasizing that the certified record had been filed and
all references to the certified record were specifically cited in Mother’s brief.
Mother also filed her reproduced record on the same day. Under these
circumstances, Mother’s noncompliance with the relevant rules did not hamper
this Court’s ability to conduct review.       Accordingly, we deny Father’s
application to dismiss. See, e.g., Clark v. Peugh, 257 A.3d 1260, 1264 n.1
(Pa.Super. 2021), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 268 A.3d 1079 (2021)
(declining to quash appeal for appellant’s failure to file reproduced record
where this Court’s ability to review appeal was not substantially impeded).

                                           -7-
J-A10022-23

          would have provided appropriate living arrangements for
          [C]hild without Mother’s insistence?

       4. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in failing to
          weigh in favor of Mother Custody factor (a)(9) under 23
          Pa.C.S.A. § 5328, “Which party is more likely to maintain
          a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship
          with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs,”
          when the Honorable Court found that, “Mother has a
          proven record of providing a loving, stable, consistent,
          and nurturing home for the child?”

       5. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in failing to
          weigh heavily in Mother’s favor Custody factor (a)(10),
          “Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical,
          emotional, developmental, educational and special needs
          of the child,” when the Honorable Trial Court did not
          address or consider in any way the undisputed testimony
          of Mother’s significant role in the Child’s education—
          including being the sole parental participant in parent-
          teacher conferences and her knowledge of the Great
          Valley school system, as well as the documented
          evidence Mother presented at trial demonstrating the
          child’s significant lack of sleep and excessive time spent
          on electronic devices in Father’s care, and when the
          Honorable Trial Court ignored its own stated concerns
          regarding Father’s lack of responsibility for the child’s
          hygiene, partially chalking it up to a “Men are from Mars,
          Women are from Venus” issue?

       6. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred in failing to
          weigh more heavily in Mother’s favor Custody factor
          (a)(13), “The level of conflict between the parties and the
          willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with
          one     another,”    when      the   evidence    presented
          demonstrated that Mother is the party who strives to
          ensure cooperation between the parties for the benefit of
          [C]hild and that Father is the party who, despite Mother’s
          efforts and a court order to use Our Family Wizard, is
          frequently unable, significantly delayed, or unwilling to
          communicate with Mother, creating an atmosphere of
          frustration and conflict?

                                    -8-
J-A10022-23

         7. Whether the Honorable Trial Court erred by weighing
            only slightly in Mother’s favor Custody factor (a)(14)
            under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328, “The history of drug or
            alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s
            household,” when the Honorable Trial Court found
            Mother’s testimony regarding Father’s alcohol abuse
            credible, when the Honorable Trial Court found it unusual
            for a person with such an alcohol problem to be just fine
            without professional assistance, which Father has not
            sought, and when Father admitted to drinking most days
            for a total of 14-28 drinks per week?

(Mother’s Brief at 4-7).

      Our 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.

         With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the
         best interests of the child. This standard requires a case-
         by-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately
         affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-
         being of the child.

M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 334 (Pa.Super. 2013).

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Allison Bell

                                     -9-
J-A10022-23

Royer, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinions

filed on November 17, 2022 and January 17, 2023 comprehensively discuss

and properly dispose of the questions presented. (See Custody Order and

Opinion, filed 11/17/22 and Rule 1925(a) Opinion, filed 1/17/23). In those

opinions, the court properly assessed and weighed the sixteen custody factors,

finding that factors (a)(3), (a)(10), (a)(13) and (a)(14) weighed in favor of

Mother, factors (a)(1) and (a)(4) weighed in favor of Father, factors (a)(5),

(a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(11) and (a)(12) did not favor either party, and the

remaining factors were inapplicable. (See Custody Order and Opinion, at 2-

9 unpaginated).

      With respect to Mother’s first claim on appeal, the court stated that it

did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s proposed custody schedule

despite finding that more custody factors weighed in Mother’s favor than

Father’s. The court explained that a custody determination should not be a

formulaic tallying of the number of custody factors and the court has discretion

to assign varying degrees of weight to each of the sixteen custody factors as

appropriate in each case, with the only limitation that factors affecting the

safety of the child must be given significant weight. As there were no concerns

about the safety of Child in this matter, the court acted within its discretion in

finding that factor (a)(4), the need for stability, should be weighed heavily to

prevent disturbing the longstanding custody arrangement to which Child is

accustomed, particularly where Father undertook actions to remedy much of

                                     - 10 -
J-A10022-23

Mother’s concerns prior to the custody trial. Accordingly, the court did not err

by maintaining the current custody schedule in Child’s best interests

regardless of its finding that more custody factors weighed in Mother’s favor.

(See Rule 1925(a) Opinion at 16-17).

      Regarding Mother’s second claim, there is no evidence that Father has

ever attempted to restrict or limit Mother’s access to Child or taken any action

to hinder Mother’s relationship with Child. Father has consistently maintained

throughout the pendency of this case that he wanted to keep the 50/50

custody schedule so that Child can continue to have a good relationship with

both parents. Although the court did not doubt Mother’s intentions in filing

the instant complaint, the court noted that Mother’s proposed custody

schedule would lower Father’s custodial time to four days in two weeks during

the school year. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion by weighing

factor (a)(1) slightly in Father’s favor. (See Custody Order and Opinion at 2-

3 unpaginated).

      Addressing Mother’s third claim that the court erred in finding that factor

(a)(4) weighed in Father’s favor, the court noted that Child is thriving under

the current custody arrangement which has been in place since Child was

approximately seven years old.      Child has a great relationship with both

parents, is doing well in school, participates in extracurricular activities, and

is physically and mentally healthy. The court further noted that Father took

steps to remedy many of Mother’s concerns regarding hygiene, sleep, screen

                                     - 11 -
J-A10022-23

time and living arrangements prior to the custody hearing, and the court had

no concerns regarding either parent’s ability to care for Child. Accordingly,

the court determined that Child greatly benefits from the equal time that he

spends with both parents and factor (a)(4) weighs in favor of maintaining the

shared 50/50 custody arrangement, which is Father’s position. (See Custody

Order and Opinion at 4 unpaginated; Rule 1925(a) Opinion at 17-21).

      Regarding Mother’s fourth and fifth claims that the court erred in failing

to find that factor (a)(9) and (a)(10) weighed heavily in Mother’s favor, the

court found that both parents love and participate in Child’s life. The court

acknowledged that Mother has historically attended more closely to Child’s

daily needs and activities and found that factor (a)(10) weighed in Mother’s

favor. Nevertheless, the court noted that it is not required to give greater

consideration to a parent’s historical role as the Child’s primary caregiver.

There was ample evidence that at the time of the custody hearing, there were

no present issues with Child’s hygiene, sleep schedule, living arrangements,

education, or extracurricular activities while in Father’s custody. Accordingly,

the court had no concerns about either parent’s capacity to care for Child’s

daily needs at the time of the hearing. Additionally, there was no dispute that

both parents love Child, have a strong relationship with him, and play an

important role in Child’s life. Therefore, the court did not err in finding that

both parents were equally likely to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing

                                     - 12 -
J-A10022-23

relationship with Child. (See Custody Order and Opinion at 6-7 unpaginated;

Rule 1925(a) Opinion at 14-16, 19-21).

      Addressing Mother’s sixth claim that the court erred by finding that

factor (a)(13) only weighed slightly in Mother’s favor, the court explained that

there is not a high level of conflict between the parties. While Mother testified

that Father is sometimes slow to respond or flippant in his communication,

both parties have made consistent efforts to keep this case out of court and

have demonstrated their desire to put Child first. The court acted within its

discretion in assigning an appropriate degree of weight to this factor based on

the circumstances of this case.      (See Custody Order and Opinion at 8

unpaginated).

      With respect to Mother’s claim that the court failed to assign proper

weight to its finding that factor (a)(14) weighed in Mother’s favor based on

Father’s history of alcohol abuse, the court determined that there was

insufficient evidence to conclude that Father was currently abusing alcohol or

that Father’s alcohol consumption was a danger to Child.        While the court

credited Mother’s testimony that Father abused alcohol during their marriage,

the court noted that Father’s current alcohol intake is within the low to

moderate range, as determined by two hair follicle tests that Father

underwent. Father plays an active role in Child’s care and there is insufficient

evidence that Father’s current ability to do so is hampered by alcohol

consumption.    Accordingly, the court found that Father’s current level of

                                     - 13 -
J-A10022-23

alcohol intake does not present a harm to Child and assigned an appropriate

degree of weight to factor (a)(14) in its determination that maintaining Child’s

custody arrangement was in Child’s best interests. (See Custody Order and

Opinion at 9-10 unpaginated; Rule 1925(a) Opinion at 19).           The record

supports the court’s conclusions. See M.J.M., supra. Accordingly, we affirm

on the basis of the trial court’s opinions.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/07/2023

                                      - 14 -
                                                                       Circulated
                                           Received 1/11/2023 4:50:09 PM Superior 08/16/2023 04:16
                                                                                  Court Eastern     PM
                                                                                                District

                                               Filed 1/11/2023 4:50:09 PM Superior Court Eastern District
                                                                                        3193 EDA 2022

 KELLY HENNIGAN,                                   IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
             Plaintiff
                                                   CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                        vs.
                                                   CIVIL ACTION- LAW

 PATRICK HENNIGAN,                                  NO. 2021- 10052-CU
             Defendant
                                                    IN CUSTODY`_.,
                                                                                             moo.
                                                                       mr,t -iI     J        9
Karen P. Reynolds, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff                     C7O
                                                                             O
                                                                              TI
Mark A. Masley, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant
                                                                                    1-n
                                                                             F

                                     OPINION                                        0

          Trial in this custody matter was conducted before the Honorable Allison Bell

Royer on October 5, 2022. Plaintiff, Kelly Hennigan, ( hereinafter " Mother") and

Defendant, Patrick Hennigan, (hereinafter " Father") are the parents of one minor child

born of their marriage, C.H., (d.o.b. 5/7/11) ( hereinafter "the Child").

          The parties were married on May 26, 2006 and divorced by decree on Augus

16, 2018.     The parties reached a comprehensive agreement in 2018 that included

detailed custody provisions which governed their custody arrangement until Mother

initiated the instant custody action on December 22, 2021                        by filing a Custody

Complaint.       The parties attended custody conciliation on February 16, 2022 with

Custody Conciliator Keith Boggess, Esquire and a resulting Temporary Custody Order

was entered by Judge Carmody on February 18, 2022. (See Ex. M-1 B.) A review

hearing (conciliation) was held before Conciliator Boggess on May 18, 2022, and a

Order of Court followed by Judge Binder on May 23, 2022, which granted Father an

Mother continued shared          legal and    physical    custody,     addressed           vacation   an

holidays, and contained provisions relating to co-parent counseling, drug and alcohol

testing    and   evaluation,   a housing     requirement for Father,             and      communication
provisions ( See Ex. M-1 C.) Mother filed aDemand for Trial on ,tune 27, 2022. Both'

parties filed the requisite pre-trial statements.   A pre-trial conference was scheduled

for September 28, 2022, was subsequently continued for attorney availability and was

held on October 4, 2022 with trial before the undersigned following on October 5,

2022.

        The following witnesses testified at trial: Father and Mother. After the trial

began, the parties agreed on record that it was neither necessary nor in the Child's

best interests for the Court to conduct an in camera interview of him at this time and,

therefore, we did not do so.

I.      CUSTODY FACTORS

        Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a), "[i]n ordering any form of custody, the courl

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 [...]." This

Court considers the statutory factors of Section 5328(a) in numerical order:

        (a)(9) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and
        continuing contact between the child and another party.

        The parties had been managing the details of their custodial arrangemen

without court intervention until the end of 202'1.     Mother brought the instant action

based on her concern for certain aspects of Child's time with Father.      Mother named

Father's alcohol consumption, his failure to secure at least atwo-bedroom residence

per their written agreement, Child's homework completion and hygiene problems when

in Father's custody as reasons for pursuing modification. Mother stressed that she did

not wish to take Child away from Father, but that he should spend most of his school
nights with her and revert to 50-50 in the summers.          We do not find that Mother is

lacking purity in her motivation(s) for bringing the instant action; instead we believe

she has brought them due to genuine care and concern for the Child.          However, we

find this factor to weigh very slightly in favor of Father at this time.

       (a)(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:'

       By agreement of the parties as placed on the record on the day of trial, and with

no evidence having been presented relevant to this factor, we find it is irrelevant at this

time and do not analyze it herein.

       (a)(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.

       The parties have had ashared custody arrangement since their separation, and

the Child has thrived. We find each party to be quite capable of performing the regular

duties associated with parenthood.          Mother has handled the lion's share of the

medical, dental, etc. scheduling and managing, and also significantly more of the

school responsibilities, or at least attended to them on adeeper level. By all accounts

Mother is very good at this. The parties are cautioned about falling into the post-court

trap of changing their parenting setup based strictly on what was presented as

evidence at trial.      In other words, Mother taking the lead in scheduling and

administration has worked out well for the Child. It can be more difficult for all parties

when the more passive parent begins to do things he or she is unaccustomed to

handling just to present abetter picture in apotential future court appearance. If either

party would like Father to carry more' of the weight in terms of doctors, dentists,
school, etc., then this should be unequivocally communicated between them, and they

should work on it together moving forward.      If both parties are content with Mother

being the administrator parent, then that is also perfectly acceptable.     This factor is

weighted in favor of Mother.

       (a)(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family
       life and community life.

       The parties originally lived in Connecticut. Father testified credibly about taking

a new job in Chester County to be closer to the Child. Father has now purchased and

moved into anew residence that complies with the living arrangement requirements of

the parties' original custody agreement.    It is uncertain as to whether Father would

have followed, through on this requirement without Mother's insistence. We agree with

Mother that the prior sleeping arrangements the Child had at Father's were less than

ideal and out of compliance with the terms of the parties' old agreement. Father has

cured this issue.    Both parties have lovely homes that are more than suitable for

raising the Child.   Regarding education, family and community life, there is no doubt

that Mother has provided both stability and continuity.   Father faced a long stretch of

difficulty with employment following the loss of ahighly compensated position, but has

now built his own business into a success.      The Child is used to a shared custody

arrangement and has done very well with it.         This factor weighs in favor of not

disturbing the longstanding shared physical custody arrangement, which is Father's

position. Under the facts of this case and in a "best interests" context, we weight this

factor heavily.
       (a)(5) The availability of extended family.

      .On some level both parties are appreciative- of the importance of each other's

presence and bond in the Child's- life. There was little ,to no evidence presented by

either side on this factor. Father ,testified briefly about both of his parents and acouple

of his siblings being deceased. "The Child is his*family." Neither side addressed this

factor ,in closing. ' We do not find this factor to be particularly persuasive in this case.

This factor does not currently weigh in favor of one party over the other.

       (a)(6) The child's sibling relationships.

       The Child has no siblings or step-siblings, and this factor is not relevant in the

instant case.

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

       After commencement of trial, the parties agreed that it was neither necessary

nor in the Child's best interests for the Court to conduct an in camera interview of the

Child at this time and, therefore, we did not do so. We glean from the other evidence

presented that both parties deeply love the Child and he them. We honor the parties'

joint decision regarding the Child's testimony as we believe both were guided by

viewing the Child's best interests in so deciding.

        (a)($) 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.

        We do not find that either party attempts to turn the Child against the other

 parent.    Fortunately for the parties, they are both represented by seasoned,

 experienced counsel who both refrained from trying to insert the difference in
parenting styles and communication issues into an argument under this factor. These

parties certainly give different weight to various parenting responsibilities, but have

largely managed to keep their son appropriately insulated from their disagreements.

We too often see intelligent, well-educated parties leaving their children's emotional

wellbeing in tatters on the battlefield of child custody court.   These parties are very

careful to avoid that outcome for their son, and the value of their awareness in that

regard cannot be overstated. This factor is not weighted in favor of one party over the

other.

         (a)(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.

         Mother has a proven record of providing a loving, stable, consistent and

nurturing home life for the Child. Father has shown himself to be quite capable in this

realm also, basing numerous life decisions such as employment and housing to be

close to the Child.   This is Child is well-adjusted and thriving.   This factor does not

currently weigh in favor of one party over the other.

         (a)(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical,
         emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.

         Mother has been handling these needs for many years, and has certainly

 proven herself capable.    Father has handled these things on adaily basis also, albeit

 not always to Mother's satisfaction.    A good example of this is the hygiene issue

 Mother presented evidence of alongstanding disagreement between the parties as to

 what is, acceptable for the Child in the physical, hygiene category.     We see this as

 partially "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" but only partially.        Mother is not
wrong. When there is a noticeable odor coming from the Child (and we note that this

is likely to get worse with age and hormones, not better), or the Child's hair appears

greasy, etc., this is something that Father must start noticing and enforcing with more

authority. it is one thing to be the weekend warrior parent that sends back the dirty kid

to the other side (that scenario is also unfortunate) but it is even worse for a 50%

custodian to shirk the unpleasantries of being the more consistent bordering on sole

bath/shower/toothbrush/hairbrush enforcer. Not only is it unfair to the other parent as

it routinely places her in a " bad guy" role, but, more importantly, it is likely to subject

the Child to derision from his peers if allowed to continue.        Schoolkids notice the

"smelly kid" to use Mother's term, and she is only looking out for the Child in constantly

reminding Father that it is important. The Child 'is not unique in his age group for being

less than fond of routine hygiene maintenance. Often this issue will correct itself over

time and the parties may one day discover they are the parents of ahigh schooler that

takes multiple showers per day. However, for the time being, Father must step up his

oversight of the Child in the hygiene category; we found Mother's testimony credible

 on this issue.    To be clear, we are not talking about an occasional deviation for a

 camping trip, e.g., but for the average daily routine there is room for improvement

 during Father's time. This factor favors Mother.

        (a)(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

        Mother and Father both live in the Malvern area within approximately four to five

 miles of each other and within the boundaries of the same school district. Distance is

 not an issue in this case. This factor does not currently weigh in favor of one party
over the other.

        (a)(12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make
       appropriate child-care arrangements.

       Both parties are available to care for the Child or to make appropriate

arrangements for child care if necessary, and therefore this factor has aneutral effect.

       (a)(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 o
       unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

       Consistent with our analysis in Factor 8 above, this is not a high conflict case.

There is a level of conflict, of course, or the parties would not be seeking judicial

intervention.     However, the parties are dealing with their disagreements the correct

way through co-parent counseling and by keeping their disputes away from the Child.

To their credit, both parties have made consistent efforts to keep this case out of court,

and to make decisions with the Child's best interests front and center. Mother believes

that she does more of the heavy, lifting when it;
                                                ,.comes to parenting, and she may b

correct. Some of that, however, may be pursuant to her design. There was evidence

presented that bolstered - Mother's belief that Father takes a defensive posture

whenever approached by Mother regarding school, hygiene, and activity issues. W

are hopeful that the parties will continue to progress with the additional co-parenting

sessions they have both agreed to pursue.         Each should keep an open mind t

examining the other's viewpoint on these issues. We recognize that this is easier t

say than to' do, and is far easier to see from the outside than when living in asituation.

 However, the parties have shown the ability to place the Child first, and by and larg
they both do that.    Physical :abuse is not an issue in this matter.      When given full

consideration spanning the life of this case, this factor slightly favors Mother.

       (a)('l4) The history of drug or alcohol ,
                                               . abuse of a party or member of a
       party's household.

       The provable aspect of this factor has some age to it, and that impacts its

relevance and weight assigned to it.     Mother testified credibly about Father's alcohol

abuse during the marriage. Mother suspected that this has continued in some fashion

through present day, or at least the recent past, and this was part of what precipitated

her filing. Father did submit to testing and evaluation by Dr. Roeder on this topic. Dr.

Roeder was not called to testify at trial. Evidence was presented without objection that

Father does still drink, but that his use is in the low to moderate use range.        The

current. custody order prohibits either party from         drinking   alcohol during their

respective custodial time. Father denies drinking during his custodial periods (as does

Mother, but Mother's alcohol usage has never been problematic to our knowledge).

Mother indicated that on a couple of occasions, including once in the middle of the

night late November, 2021, the Child asked to be picked up early because Father was

"asleep" and hadn't stirred to engage with him or to put him to bed; Mother was

alarmed by the Child contacting her at such an hour via his iPad to try to get her to

come get him.     Mother believed Father's inability to be roused to have been alcohol-

induced, although there is no concrete proof thereof.      Father did not attend rehab or

seek assistance with his significant alcohol problem that he admits existed during the

marriage. We do not find that Father is abusing alcohol currently. However, we say

this quite cautiously as it is unusual for aperson to have had an alcohol problem to the
degree of what Mother observed during the marriage (we did find her testimony

credible), and then be just fine without either an epiphany of some sort or professional

assistance to conquer those demons, neither of which is in evidence instantly. Father

is cautioned that if he is in need of any help in the substance abuse arena, he would

be wise to avail himself of same instead of kicking the can down the road. The Child

needs both parties in his life; he is used to that and has thrived thus far, which is the

greatest reason we decline to move away from shared custody at this time.              Any

backslide into the abyss of alcohol abuse would be avery significant factor in our eyes

and could easily result in a change of custody. However, if Father is inclined to seek

some help to fortify his resolve and/or obtain or strengthen a choice of sobriety, we

caution Mother not to be too hasty in seeking a future modification for this reason.

That would likely be examined differently than evidence of a continuing problem that

Father refuses to address, and herein we caution Father. The Child is getting older

and middle and high school curricula are rife with education on drugs and alcohol. It

Father does have aproblem he is attempting to cover, it is only amatter of ti me before,,

it is evident to the Child; Father should not ever place the Child in the difficult position

 of having to choose between honesty and parent protection as that can have serious

 and lasting impact on both his development and his adult life.        Viewed in Coto this

 factor is in favor of Mother, but only slightly as with the evidence before us presently,

 Father seems to be in control of his alcohol issue.
       (a)(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a
       party's household.
       Neither party presented any evidence as to this factor for either party, and

neither party has another household member besides the Child.                Neither side

addressed this factor in post-trial submissions and we find this factor neutral.

       (a)(16) Any other relevant factor.

       Neither party presented evidence of any other relevant factors.

       Accordingly, this Court enters the Custody Order that follows.
                                                                      Circulated 08/16/2023 04:16 PM

s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

KELLY HENNIGAN,                           : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
        Plaintiff
                                             :CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
       vs.
                                             :NO. 2021 -
                                                       10052-CU
PATRICK HENNIGAN,                                                       _         c
          Defendant                          :IN CUSTODY— CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK

Karen P. Reynolds, Esquire, for the Plaintiff
Mark A. Masley, Esquire, for the Defendant

                                                                                  J
                          OPINION SUR RULE 1925(a)

               Before this Honorable reviewing Court is the counseled Children's Fast

Track Appeal of Plaintiff/Mother Kelly Hannigan from this Court's Custody Order dated

November 16, 2022, which was entered on the docket on November 17, 2022. Mother

filed her Notice of Appeal, along with her Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on

Appeal, on December 16, 2022, within thirty ( 30) day period permitted by the Rules of

Appellate Procedure for filing an appeal.       See Pa. R.A.P. 903(a)("Except as otherwise

prescribed by this rule, the notice     of appeal required by Rule 902 ( manner of taking

appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is

taken. "). Consequently, Mother's appeal is timely under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 903(a) and complies with the requirements for Children's Fast Track review,

as set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i).

               The facts of this matter have been set forth in the Opinion which

accompanied our November 16, 2022 Order. Our Opinion was also filed on November

17, 2022. We respectfully refer this Honorable reviewing Court to this document for a

narration of the factual and procedural history of this case.       Mother has appealed from

                                                 1
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

our Order finding that the Child's best interests will be served by continuing the parties'

shared legal and physical custody of the subject Child.

               Mother sets forth numerous issues in her Concise Statement. We will recite

them below.

               1.    The Honorable Court erred in denying Mother's Petition
                    for Modification of a Custody Order despite weighing the
                    majority of the relevant custody factors in Mother's favor.
                    Following trial, the parties agreed that only seven (7) of the
                    16 factors set forth in 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5328(a) were
                    relevant to this case and each counsel submitted written
                    closing argument on those seven (7) factors only. The
                    Honorable Court weighed only one ( 1) of those factors
                    "very slightly" in Father's favor, while weighing four (4) of
                    those factors in favor of Mother, and the remaining two (2)
                    factors equally.

               2. The Honorable Court erred in weighing in Father's favor
                  Custody factor ( a)(1), "Which party is more likely to
                  encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact
                  between the child and another party." In its Opinion, the
                  Honorable Court provides no basis for this finding. Instead,
                  the Honorable Court states, "We do not find that Mother is
                  lacking purity in her motivation(s) for bringing the instant
                  action; instead, we believe that she has brought them due
                  to genuine care and concern for the child." The Honorable
                  Court did not analyze at all Father's actions relating to this
                  factor found "very slightly" in favor of Father.

               3. The Honorable Court erred by failing to weigh in favor of
                  Mother Custody factor (a)(4). "The need for stability and
                  continuity in the child's education, family life and
                  community life." The Honorable Court failed to consider at
                  all the testimonial and documentary evidence related to
                  Father's inability to keep up with the child's education and
                  extracurricular activities without regular reminders from
                  Mother. The Honorable Court also erred in failing to weigh
                  this factor in Mother's favor regarding the child's living
                  arrangement. Despite finding in its analysis of this factor
                  that, " It is uncertain as to whether Father would have
                  followed through on this requirement without Mother's

                                                 2
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

                  insistence. We agree with Mother that the prior sleeping
                  arrangements were less than ideal and out of compliance
                  with the terms of the parties' old agreement." Moreover,
                  the Honorable Court ignored the fact that Father failed to
                  cure his poor housing situation until he was ordered to do
                  so by the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.
                  Despite finding that, " Regarding education, family and
                  community life, there is no doubt that Mother has provided
                  both stability and continuity," the Honorable Court did not
                  weigh this factor in either party's favor. This was in error.

               4. The Honorable Court erred by failing to weigh in favor of
                  Mother Custody factor (a)(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." The Honorable Court erred in placing
                  unwarranted weight on Father's move to Pennsylvania
                  four (4) years ago and incorrectly stating that he based his
                  employment decision on proximity to the child when the
                  record reflects that Father had been unemployed for years
                  prior to his move to Pennsylvania from Connecticut. Given
                  the finding in its opinion that, " Mother has aproven record
                  of providing a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing
                  home for the child," the Honorable Court erred in failing to
                  weigh this factor in favor of Mother.

               5. The Honorable Court erred by failing to weigh heavily in
                  Mother's favor Custody factor (a)(10), "Which party is
                  more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional,
                  developmental, educational and special needs of the
                  child." The Honorable Court erred in failing to consider its
                  own reasoning regarding Father's lack of responsibility
                  with regard to the child's hygiene and chalked it up to
                  partially being a " Men are from Mars, Woman [sic] are from
                  Venus" issue. Further, the Honorable Court erred in failing
                  to consider at all the evidence presented at trial regarding
                  the excessive amount of time that the child spends on
                  electronic devices while in Father's care, and the
                  significant lack of sleep he experiences at Father's home.
                  As the Court found in its consideration of factor (a)(3),
                  "Mother has handled the lion's share of the medical,
                  dental, etc. scheduling and managing, and also
                  significantly more of the school responsibilities, or at least
                  attended to them on adeeper level." While the Honorable

                                                 3
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

                  Court did weigh this factor in Mother's favor, by virtue of
                  the evidence presented and its own findings, it was error
                  not to weigh this factor heavily in Mother's favor.

               6. The Honorable Court erred by failing to weigh more heavily
                  in Mother's favor Custody factor (a)(13), "The level of
                  conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability
                  of the parties to cooperate with one another." Although the
                  Honorable Court did weigh this factor "slightly" in favor of
                  Mother, the Court erred in failing to give greater
                  consideration to the evidence presented demonstrating
                  Mother's role in ensuring that cooperation between the
                  parties occurs and, despite Mother's best efforts, Father's
                  inability or unwillingness to communicate with Mother,
                  creating an atmosphere of frustration and conflict that is
                  not in the child's best interest.

              7. The Honorable Court erred by weighing "only slightly" in
                 Mother's favor factor (a)(14), "The history of drug of [sic]
                 alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's
                 household." The Honorable Court found that Mother
                 testified credibly about Father's alcohol abuse during the
                 marriage; that Father has not sought assistance with his
                 significant alcohol problem; that it is " unusual for aperson
                 to have had an alcohol problem to the degree of what
                 Mother observed during the marriage (we did find her
                 testimony credible) and then be just fine without either an
                 epiphany of some sort or professional assistance to
                 conquer those demons, neither of which is in evidence
                 instantly." Despite those findings, and despite Father's
                 own admission during his drug and alcohol evaluation,
                 which was admitted into evidence, that he drinks " most
                 days," for atotal of " 14-28 drinks per week," the Honorable
                 Court did not weigh this factor heavily in Mother's favor,
                 which was in error. The Honorable Court found that
                 because " presently", Father seems to be in control of his
                 alcohol issue," this factor is in favor of Mother, but only
                 slightly. Given the evidence presented, the Honorable
                 Court erred in not weighing this factor heavily in Mother's
                 favor.

               8. The Honorable Court recognized Father's deficiencies, yet
                  erroneously entered an Opinion advising Father on how to
                  correct them, rather than analyzing them and weighing

                                                4
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

                    them appropriately to determine what is in the best interest
                    of the child. Because based on the Court's own analysis
                    and the evidence presented, the relevant factors weigh
                    heavily in Mother's favor, the Honorable Court erred in
                    denying Mother's Petition to modify the custody order and
                    failing to grant Mother primary physical custody during the
                    school year.

(Mother's Concise Statement, 12/16/22, at 1-4). Having reviewed the relevant statutory

and decisional law, we are now prepared to issue our Rule 1925(a) Statement in

accordance with Pennsylvania Rule 1925(a)(2)(ii).

               The Child Custody Act applies to disputes relating to child custody matters.

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5321; Walker v. Kress, 2019 WL 13235541 ( Butler 2019); West v. West,

34 D. & C.5th 427 ( Berks 2013)("Actions in child custody are decided under 23

Pennsylvania Child Custody Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5321 et [ ] seq. and the decisional law

that flows therefrom. "). The Superior Court reviews atrial court's determination in achild

custody case for an abuse of discretion, and its scope of review is broad. W.C.F. v. M.G.,

115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super. 2015). As this Honorable reviewing Court explained,

                "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."

                                                5
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 * 5 ( Pa. Super. 2017)(quoting C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d

441, 443 ( Pa. Super. 2012)(citation omitted)). The Superior Court has stated,

              "'The discretion that atrial court employs in custody matters
              should be accorded the utmost respect, given 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 atrial court in observing witnesses in a
              custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an
              appellate court by aprinted record. "'

R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *5-6 ( Pa. Super. 2017)(quoting Ketterer v. Seifert, 902

A.2d 533, 540 ( Pa. Super. 2006)(quoting Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 ( Pa.

Super. 2004))); E.R. v. D.D., 2016 WL 1734868 *4 ( Pa. Super. 2016)(quoting Ketterer v.

Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 ( Pa. Super. 2006)). As the Superior Court recently explained,

              "it is not [the appellate court's] function to determine whether
              the trial court reached the ` right' decision; rather, [the
              appellate court] must consider whether, ' based on the
              evidence presented, given due deference to the trial court's
              weight and credibility determinations,' the trial court erred or
              abused its discretion in awarding custody to the prevailing
              party."

R.E. v. S.B., 2022 WL 6643851 *6 ( Pa. Super. 2022)(quoting King v. King, 889 A.2d 630,

632 ( Pa. Super. 2005)(citation omitted)).

              Although the Superior Court is given abroad power of review,

              "[it] is constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when
              evaluating the court's order. An abuse of discretion is not
              merely an error of judgment, but if the court's judgment is
              manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record
              discretion is abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out
              where it appears from a review of the record that there is no
              evidence to support the court's findings or that there is a
              capricious disbelief of evidence."

                                                6
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *6 ( Pa. Super. 2017)(quoting M.A.T. v. G.S. T., 989 A.2d

11, 18-19 ( Pa. Super. 2010)(en banc)(quotation and citations omitted)). See also W.C.F.

v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super. 2015)(while prudence dictates that the Superior Court

exercise its authority sparingly in a child custody case, it is not powerless to rectify a

manifestly unreasonable child custody order). "'An abuse of discretion is not merely an

error of judgment; if in reaching aconclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law,

or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or

the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused."' R.L.H. v.

L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *6 ( Pa. Super. 2017)(quoting Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d

107, 111 ( Pa. Super. 2007)(quotation omitted)).

               The paramount concern in child custody cases is the best interests of the

child. C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891 ( Pa. 2018); R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *6 ( Pa.

Super. 2017)( "With any custody case decided under the Act, the paramount concern is

the best interests of the child. ").   See also W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super.

2015)(when a trial court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is

paramount); S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621 ( Pa. Super. 2002)(in achild custody matter the

paramount concern of the trial court is the best interest of the child); Alfred v. Braxton,

659 A.2d 1040 ( Pa. Super. 1995)(in matters of custody and visitation, the ultimate

consideration of the court is the determination of what is in the best interest of the child).

In acustody dispute, all other issues are deemed less important than the child's physical,

intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. Dorsey v. Freeman, 652 A.2d 352 ( Pa. Super.

1994). See also Nonnenman v. Elshimy, 615 A.2d 799 ( Pa. Super. 1992), appeal denied,

631 A.2d 1008 ( Pa. 1993)(in matters of custody and visitation, the ultimate consideration
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

for the court is the determination of what is in the best interests of the child, and all other

considerations are deemed subordinate to the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and

spiritual well-being).

               Section 5328(a) of the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5321 et seq.,

prescribes a number of factors a trial court must consider when making a custody

determination. 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5328(a); R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *6 ( Pa. Super.

2017). "Trial courts are required to consider'[a]II of the factors listed in section 5328(a) .

.. when entering a custody order. "'      R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 * 6 ( Pa. Super.

2017)(quoting J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 ( Pa. Super. 2011))(emphasis omitted).

See also K. M. v. C. L., 2018 WL 3213896 * 6 ( Pa. Super. 2018)(quoting A. V. v. S. T., 87

A.3d 818, 822-23 ( Pa. Super. 2014)(quoting J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 ( Pa.

Super. 2011)(emphasis in original)))( All of the factors listed in [S]ection 5328(a) are

required to be considered by the trial court when entering acustody order.""); S. WD. v.

S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 ( Pa. Super. 2014)(a trial court must apply the statutory child custody

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); Walker v. Kress, 2019 WL

13235541 ( Butler 2019)("[T]he Child Custody Act requires the trial court to analyze the

16 Factors set forth at 23 Pa. C.S. § 5328(a) to the extent the factors are relevant.") These

factors are as follows:

               §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:

                                                8
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

                   (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 aparty
                       or member of the party's household, whether
                       there is acontinued 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.

                   (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.

                                                9
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

                   (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 achild 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 aparty's household.

                   (15)     The mental and physical condition of aparty
                       or member of aparty's household.

                   (16)       Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5328(a); R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089 *6-7 ( Pa. Super. 2017).                In

matters of custody, adetermination of what is in the best interest of the child is made on

a case-by-case basis, premised upon consideration of all factors which legitimately

impact the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. M.J.M. v. M.L.G.,

63 A.3d 331 ( Pa. Super. 2.013), appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013); Ifskoski v.

Wiskoski, 629 A.2d 996 ( Pa. Super. 1993), appeal denied, 639 A.2d 33 ( Pa. 1994). See

also Altus-Baumhor v. Baumhor, 595 A.2d 1147 ( Pa. Super. 1991)(determinations in

matters of custody and visitation of what is in the best interest of achild are made on a

case-by-case basis and must be premised upon the consideration of all factors which

                                                10
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

legitimately have an effect upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-

being).

               As the Superior Court has instructed,

               "Section 5323(d) provides that atrial court 'shall 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(a) custody] factors prior to the deadline by which a
               litigant must file anotice of appeal.' C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946,
               955 ( Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 70 A.3d 808 ( Pa.
               2013)....

               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.'
               M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 ( Pa. Super. 2013), appeal
               denied, [ 620 Pa. 710], 68 A.3d 909 (2013).            A court's
               explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately
               addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section
               5323(d). Id.

R.L.H. v. L.C., 2017 WL 2704089'`7 ( Pa. Super. 2017) (
                                                      quoting A. V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818,

822-823 ( Pa. Super. 2014).        See also W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super.

2015)(while the Child Custody Act requires a trial court to articulate the reasons for its

decision prior to the filing of a notice of appeal, there is no required amount of detail; all

that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody

decision is based on those considerations); M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 ( Pa. Super.

2013), appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013)(same proposition).

               As this Honorable reviewing Court will note, we filed an Opinion and Order

on November 17, 2022 delineating our custody decision and the reasons therefor. Our

November 17, 2022 Opinion and Order demonstrate that each of the sixteen ( 16) custody

                                                11
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

factors were addressed therein.       Consequently, we would respectfully submit that we

have complied with the requirements of Section 5323(d) of the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.

C.S.A. § 5321 et seq. We stand by our rationale as expressed in our November 17, 2022

Opinion and Order and respectfully submit that it is supported by the facts of record and

free of legal error.

                All of Mother's assigned errors concern her disagreement with the amount

of weight we have assigned to all relevant factors. In determining aminor child's custody,

the child's best interest and permanent welfare must be decided, not in relation to afixed

standard, but by determining what is best for the child under all circumstances.

Commonwealth ex rel. Batturs v. Batturs, 60 A.2d 610 (
                                                     Pa. Super. 1948).

                As this Honorable reviewing Court has stated, " It [is] within the trial court's

province to weigh the ... factors and assess the [c]hild's best interest." J.F.M. V. C.P.,

2016 WL 487195 ( Pa. Super. 2016). The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the

trial court places on evidence.      Robinson v. Robinson, 645 A.2d 836 ( Pa. 1994)(the

parties cannot dictate the amount of weight that atrial court places on evidence in making

child custody determinations, but, rather, the paramount concern of the trial court is the

best interests of the child); W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super. 2015)(same

proposition).

                "'[1]t is within the trial court's purview as the finder of fact to determine which

factors are most salient and critical in each particular case. "'        M.K. v. C.K., 2020 WL

435458 * 13 ( Pa. Super. 2020)(quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.[3d] 331, 339 ( Pa. Super.

2013), appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013)(citation omitted)); K.M. v. C.L., 2018 WL

3213896 * 12 ( Pa. Super. 2018)(quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 ( Pa. Super.

                                                12
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

2013))(emphasis omitted); M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 ( Pa. Super. 2013), appeal

denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013).

               "Although the court is required to give 'weighted consideration to those

factors which affect the safety of the child' pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5328(a), [the

appellate court has] acknowledged that the amount of weight acourt gives any one factor

is almost entirely discretionary." K.M. v. C.L., 2018 WL 3213896 * 12 ( Pa. Super. 2018).

See also J.G.B. v. K.G., 249 A.3d 1140 ( Pa. Super. 2021)(same proposition); L.F. v. 8.8.,

2019 WL 618811 ( Pa. Super. 2019)(same proposition).                 The trial court in a custody

dispute should avoid mechanical determinations and focus its analysis on aclose scrutiny

of all of the particular facts       relevant to determining the child's          best interests.

Commonwealth ex rel. Jordan v. Jordan, 448 A.2d 1113 ( Pa. Super. 1982).

               In O.B. v. C. W.B., 2018 WL 1887122 ( Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 191

A.3d 745 ( Pa. 2018), a father objected to the trial court weighing a particular factor

"slightly" in favor of mother instead of him. The father asserted on appeal that, "' It is not

up to the [t]rial court to determine how to weigh the factors unless the factor is tied in

some way to the child's safety."' Id. The Superior Court rejected the father's argument

stating, " Section 5328(a) requires that courts give weighted consideration to those factors

which [a]ffect the safety of the child; however, in considering all of the relevant statutory

factors for the purpose of determining the child's best interests, courts must necessarily

weigh the factors between the parties, as the trial court did here." Id. The Superior Court

affirmed the trial court's award of custody to mother.         Id.    This case teaches us that

Section 5328(a) of the Child Custody Act does not delimit the court's ability to give weight

to factors that are unrelated to the child's safety; that is, courts are required to give

                                                13
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

weighted consideration to factors which impact the child's safety, but the court is not

confined to allocating weighted consideration only to such factors.

               In any custody dispute, whether the case involves two birth parents or a

parent and athird party, the court's overriding concern is always to determine what will

serve the best interests of the child; this question may never be subordinated to other

considerations, such as fundamental rights or fair play.         Dorsey v. Freeman, 652 A.2d

352 ( Pa. Super. 1994).      In child custody cases, the child's welfare is the paramount

consideration, to which all other considerations, including the rights of the parents, are

subordinate. Commonwealth ex rel. Murphy v. Walters, 392 A.2d 863 ( Pa. Super. 1978).

In other words, child custody matters are not to be determined by principles of justice

between the two parents, but the cardinal consideration is the welfare of the child,

including the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being; all other factors

are subordinate.    Commonwealth ex rel. Bordlemay v. Bordlemay, 193 A.2d 845 ( Pa.

Super. 1963). See also Commonwealth ex rel. Doberstein v. Doberstein, 192 A.2d 154

(Pa. Super. 1963)(in determining custody of children, paramount question to which all

other recognized policies of law as to custody are subordinated is the welfare of the

children); Commonwealth v. Kraus, 138 A.2d 225 ( Pa. Super. 1958)(birth parents' right

to custody must yield to the best interests and welfare of the child). See also Walker v.

Kress, 2019 WL 13235541 *7 ( Butler 2019)("[T]he Child Custody Act does not require the

trial court to consider or factor the parties' wishes. ")(emphasis in original).

               Mother seems to focus on the fact that she has historically attended more

closely to the Child's activities of daily living than has Father. Although the parties have

historically shared custody, even if Mother were the primary caretaker in fact, the trial

                                                14
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

court is not required to give weighted consideration to a parent's historical role as the

child's primary caregiver when considering the statutory factors. T. S. v. E.R.S., 2016 WL

5912891 ( Pa. Super. 2016).      Previously, the need for continuity could be a controlling

factor in acustody decision, thus placing the primary caregiver at asignificant advantage

in custody disputes between parents.        17 West's Pennsylvania Practice, Family Law §

28:2 (8th Ed. March 2022).        However, the Child Custody Act dispenses with such

presumptions; continuity is afactor, but as it does not involve the child's safety, it is not

required to be accorded greater weight than any other non-safety related factor. Id. The

court nevertheless must consider the benefits of stability and the potential harm of

changing the child's primary caregiver. Id.

              As this Honorable reviewing Court explained not too long ago,

              "[T]he consideration the primary caretaker doctrine sought to
              address (which parent spent more time providing day-to-day
              care for a young child) is addressed implicitly in the
              enumerated factors.... The considerations embraced by the
              primary caretaker doctrine have been woven into the statutory
              factors, such that they have become part and parcel of the
              mandatory inquiry.

               In short, the Legislature has created a mandatory inquiry to
               aid trial courts in determining the best interests of the child in
               acustody dispute. In doing so, it articulated the components
               of a parent's obligations and characteristics, and a child's
               needs and welfare, that must be incorporated in the trial
               court's custody decision where the parents are incapable of
               doing so. In setting forth these factors, the Legislature has
               required the trial court to give additional weight only to factors
               that it finds affect the safety of the child. This language is
               clear, and we cannot expand it to provide that a trial court
               must also give weighted consideration to a party's role as
               primary caretaker. We simply cannot graft the judicially-
               created primary caretaker doctrine on to the inquiry that the
               Legislature has established, and so we conclude that the
               primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive

                                                15
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

               emphasis on the primary caretaker's status, is no longer
               viable. "'

J.D.D. v. M.D., 2016 WL 1734784 ( Pa. Super. 2016)(quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d

331, 338-39 ( Pa. Super. 2013)(appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013)(footnote

omitted)(emphasis added))(bold type added).

               Part of Mother's complaint also asserts that we erred by awarding shared

custody when we assessed a greater quantity of factors as favoring Mother than the

quantity which we assessed to Father. In making this argument, Mother suggests that a

custody determination is or should be aproduct of amere tallying of the number of factors

assessed in favor of each party. This argument was rejected in G.A. v. J.S., 2016 WL

6534388 * 11 ( Pa. Super. 2016). As the Superior Court stated therein,

               "Deciding a proper custody arrangement involves more than
               araw tallying of factors as Father would seem to suggest. It
               is clear that'it is within the trial court's purview as the finder of
               fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in
               each particular case.... Therefore, even if agreater number
               of factors weighed in favor of Father as compared with
               Mother, [the trial court] would not be obligated to award
               custody on that basis alone."

G.A. v. J.S., 2016 WL 6534388 * 11 ( Pa. Super. 2016)(quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d

331, 339 ( Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 ( Pa. 2013))(trial court opinion

affirmed by Superior Court).

               The decision in Walker v. Kress, 2019 WL 13235541 ( Butler 2019) cogently

summed up the governing law in this arena.

               Contrary to Father's assertion, the 16 Factor analysis that the
               Court is charged to undertake, is more than a simply tally of
               factors in favor or against a particular party. It requires a
               detailed consideration of all of the factors, with primary

                                                16
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

               concern in any custody case being the best interests of the
               child. E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521, 527 ( Pa. Super. 2015).
               "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
               wellbeing."... In making its analysis, 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.... But "[i]t is within the trial court's purview
               as the finder of fact to determine which factors are most
               salient and critical in each particular case." ... Other than
               those factors implicating the safety of a child, it is within the
               court's purview to assign the appropriate weight to determine
               the child's best interest. Consequently, this analysis is more
               than amere mathematical formula as suggested by Father.

Walker v. Kress, 2019 WL 13235541 ( Butler 2019). We learn from these cases that the

Court has the authority to assign, in its own discretion, varying degrees of weight to the

sixteen ( 16) factors, with the only statutory requirement being that those affecting the

safety of the child be given significant weight, but without limitation as to the amount of

weight to be accorded to any other particular factor or any requirement that other non-

safety-related factors be weighed equally. The outcome is not aproduct of asterile tally,

or quantity versus quality assessment. Accordingly, Mother's argument fails.

               Mother also objects to the Court's award of equally shared custody on the

basis that Father's past actions have arguably been questionable in regard to his capacity

to care for the Child. Specifically, concerns were raised about Father's alcohol use, his

living arrangements, and his oversight of Child's hygiene.

               The child custody standard of " best interests of the child" requires the

Superior Court to consider the full panoply of achild's physical, emotional, and spiritual

well-being and, of primary importance to that well-being is the child's full and realistic

knowledge of his or her parents, except where it can be shown that exposure to the parent

                                                17
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

is harmful to the child. Blew v. Verta, 617 A.2d 31 ( Pa. Super. 1992). We must keep in

mind, however, that in determining the proper custody of children, the conditions must be

evaluated as they exist at the time of the custody hearing. Brooks v. Brooks, 466 A.2d

152 ( Pa. Super. 1983).        See also Commonwealth ex rel. Gifford v. Miller, 248 A.2d 63

(Pa. Super. 1968)(the controlling question in determining custody of child is the welfare

of the child at the time of the hearing before the court and not at some former time). The

decision as to custody must be made on the basis of current facts and not the past

conduct of the parties. Nancy E.M. v. Kenneth D.M., 462 A.2d 1386 ( Pa. Super. 1983).

The primary concern in custody matters lies not with the past but with the present and

future; the facts as of the time of the hearing are the foundation for the determination of

the court and past conduct is not relevant unless it will produce an ongoing negative effect

on the child's welfare. Commonwealth ex rel. Gorto v. Gorto, 444 A.2d 1299 ( Pa. Super.

1982). See also Michael T.L. v. Marilyn J.L., 525 A.2d 414 ( Pa. Super. 1987)(in acustody

action, a parent's ability to care for the child is to be determined as of the time of the

custody hearing, and, in making its decision, the trial court must not dwell on matters

buried in the past but must concentrate only on those matters which affect the present

and the future of the child); Hartman v. Hartman, 476 A.2d 938 ( Pa. Super. 1984)(custody

cannot reasonably be granted on the basis of a parent's unsettled past unless the past

behavior has an ongoing negative effect on the child's welfare); Brooks v. Brooks, 466

A.2d 152 ( Pa. Super. 1983)(parent's past emotional problems do not preclude afinding

that the child's best interests require that custody be awarded to that parent); Parks v.

Parks, 426 A.2d 108 ( Pa. Super. 1981)(in custody proceedings the court should weigh

the present capabilities of the parties to provide the child with a stable atmosphere and

                                                18
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

not dwell on past conduct, except insofar as the child's welfare is likely to be affected);

McGowan v. McGowan, 374 A.2d 1306 ( Pa. Super. 1977)(child custody must be awarded

on present conditions, rather than on consideration of past unfitness).

               According to the evidence presented at trial, Father's alcohol use is within

the low to moderate range, as determined by two (2) hair follicle tests he underwent, the

latter one voluntarily of his own accord. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 172-75). Father

is very involved in Child's life physically, emotionally, and intellectually to an extent that

would be difficult to manage if he was actively abusing alcohol. Our determinations that

Father has curbed his alcohol consumption since his divorce and that Father's alcohol

use is not at this time detrimental to his care of Child are supported by the record. See

Commonwealth ex rel. Jacobson v. Jacobson, 124 A.2d 462 ( Pa. Super. 1956)(a trial

judge in a custody case may take into consideration his or her observations as to the

changing physical and mental conditions of aparty to the proceeding or changes in the

conditions of the subject children over aperiod of time).

               With regard to Father's living arrangements, the record indicates that Father

was laid off in 2015. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 179). He had to take aone-bedroom

apartment, for which Mother co-signed. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 80, 184). Father

had aking-sized bed he would either share with Child or let Child sleep in while he slept

on the couch. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 71, 106, 183). To support himself, Father

drove for Uber full-time until he started his own business in 2020. (Trial Transcript,

10/5/22, N.T. 179). His business has become quite profitable, with his projected earnings

for the year at "well over 200,000" dollars. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 140, 178-79).

With the increasing prosperity of his business, Father has been able to purchase a

                                                19
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly v Hennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

spacious single home with enough room to accommodate Child's needs. ( 10/5/22, Ex. F-

1). Both parents have stable housing and provide more than adequate shelter for Child.

The Court has no concern over either parent's capacity in this regard.

                 With respect to Child's hygiene, Mother testified that Child showers or

bathes at her home every other day. (Trial Transcript, 10/5/22, N.T. 27). Father testified

that the Child bathes at his home every other day or every third day. (Trial Transcript,

10/5/22, N.T. 167).       The Child is an active eleven-year-old. There is no evidence that he

smells when he is at school or that he has been subjected to bullying on that basis. The

difference between Father and Mother in terms of the Child's hygiene is not of the

magnitude that warrants achange in custody.

                 In short, we determined based on the record that Child's interests are best

served by maintaining the 50-50 shared custody arrangement that the parties have

cooperatively implemented since Child was about seven (7) years old. Child is thriving

under this system. Child's grades are excellent. He is involved in extracurricular activities

in both parents' care. From the testimonies of both parents, they love Child, Child loves

them, they have strong bonds with Child, and neither one of them considers the other to

be an incapable parent or a particular threat to Child's welfare.' It is true that they have

different parenting styles and that Father's style does not always conform to Mother's

expectations. However, the record indicates that Child is benefitting from the significant

time he is able to spend with both of his beloved parents, and that his best interests lie in

1Mother sought primary physical custody only for the school year, not for the summer. If she believed Father was
athreat or an incapable parent, it is doubtful she would agree to equally share custody with him for any part of the
year.

                                                        20
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052-CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

continuing that arrangement at this time. This is why we weighed factor (a)(4), which

addresses the Child's need for stability and continuity in his education, family life and

community life, so heavily.     It is our determination that maintaining the shared 50-50

custody arrangement between the parties will best promote the Child's need for stability

and continuity in these areas. See E.A.L. v. L.J.W., 662 A.2d 1109 ( Pa. Super. 1995)(the

stability the child has enjoyed in a long-standing custody arrangement and the happy

relationship the child has developed with his or her parent(s) or others may be adecisive

factor in a custody decision); Gerber v. Gerber, 487 A.2d 413 ( Pa. Super. 1985)(in a

custody decision, the court must consider the importance of continuity in the child's life

and the desirability of the development of astable relationship with established parental

figures and the known physical environment); WItmayer v. Witmayer, 467 A.2d 371 ( Pa.

Super. 1983)(continuity and stability are important elements in ayoung child's emotional

development and are elements that must be recognized in making achild custody award

in adivorce proceeding); Boland v. Leska, 454 A.2d 75 ( Pa. 1982)(in deciding who should

have custody of a child, it is always essential to consider how long the child has spent

with each of the parties). In our opinion, maintaining this historical arrangement strongly

advances the best interests of the Child, our paramount concern.           W.C.F. v. M.G., 115

A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super. 2015)(the paramount concern of the trial court is the best interest

of the child). It happens that our determination coincides with Father's position.

               As this Honorable reviewing Court has observed, appellate interference in

achild custody case is unwarranted if the trial court's consideration of the best interest of

the child was careful and thorough, and the appellate court is unable to find any abuse of

discretion. W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 ( Pa. Super. 2015). The test in acustody case

                                                21
s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22
Children's Fast Track Appeal

is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court's conclusions.          Id. We would

respectfully submit that our decision to maintain the parties' 50-50 shared legal and

physical custody arrangement is supported factually by the competent evidence of record

and our conclusions are reasonable in light thereof and free from legal error. We would

respectfully submit that we did not abuse our discretion by awarding 50-50 shared legal

and physical custody to these parties.         Mother's arguments to the contrary are not

supported by the competent facts of record nor are they representative of the applicable

law. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that this Honorable reviewing Court deny

and dismiss Mother's appeal and affirm the undersigned's November 17, 2022 Opinion

and Order awarding 50-50 shared legal and physical custody to the parties.

                                              BY THE C9 ' T:

     1              a-3
Date                                        /Allison Bell

                                                22