Court Opinion

ID: 9555978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:12:00.976721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:27.526503
License: Public Domain

J-A15042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  E.B.                                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  M.B.                                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3 WDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered December 7, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at
                         No(s): FD 18-009151-002

BEFORE:       MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

CONCURRING/DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:

FILED: AUGUST 15, 2023

         I join the majority memorandum except for Section IV. In that portion

the majority concludes that the trial court erred by failing to provide “an

explanation before changing previously agreed-upon schedules to see if those

schedules are in the Children’s best interest as well as the parents’ best

interest because often those interests coincide.” Majority memorandum at 18.

         I am aware of no rule, statute, or case authority requiring the court to

explain its decision on holiday and vacation schedules, and the majority cites

none. Neither does Mother, for that matter. The court did have to state its

reasons for its custody award either on the record in open court or in a written

opinion. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(d); C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 951 (Pa.Super.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15042-23

2013). It undisputedly did so here. This aspect of the order did not order a

form of custody, but rather set holiday and vacation schedules. The court

therefore was not required, when rendering its decision, to explain its

reasoning as to this discrete aspect of its order.

                                      -2-