Court Opinion

ID: 9895278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 17:09:06.885492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:55.851909
License: Public Domain

J-A20034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  R.D.S., NOW KNOWN AS R.D.W.                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  B.A.B.                                       :   No. 121 MDA 2023
                                               :

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 19, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 20048497C

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

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                 FILED: NOVEMBER 6, 2023

       R.D.S., n/k/a R.D.W. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered on

December 19, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,

awarding him partial physical custody, B.A.B. (“Mother”) primary physical

custody, and the parties shared legal custody of their son, C.W. (“Child”), born

in April of 2014. The order further denied Father’s request to enroll Child in

the Graham Academy. After careful review, we affirm the ruling of the learned

Honorable Stefanie Salavantis.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20034-23

          Father and Mother are parents to three (3) children,
          [their daughters,] B.S., age eighteen (18), [and] S.S.,
          age fifteen (15), and [their son, Child], age eight (8).
          However, only custody of [Child] is at issue in the
          instant matter.

          The history of this case is very extensive, spanning
          the last nineteen (19) years. Significantly, until Fall
          of 2019, Mother was the primary custodian of all three
          (3) minor children, with Father having physical
          custody on alternating weekends.3 In September of
          2019, Mother was indicated for child abuse due to
          failure to act on an allegation of inappropriate sexual
          contact between the oldest child, B.S., and Mother’s
          boyfriend, [R.R.]. [Child] was not the subject of this
          allegation.

          Simultaneous with Mother’s indication through
          Children and Youth Services, Father filed an
          emergency petition for special relief in September of
          2019. On September 17, 2019, an order based upon
          the agreement of the parties was entered, which
          provided Father with primary physical custody of, and
          the authority to make certain legal decisions for, the
          three children. The court notes that Father never had
          legal custody of any of the children, specifically the
          child at issue, C.W., until the September 17, 2019
          order.4 Mother timely appealed her indication status
          through the Department of Human Services, and after
          a wait period of over three (3) years, the indicated
          status of both Mother and Mother’s boyfriend were
          expunged by an order dated October 6, 2022.

          Between September 2019 and [the subject
          proceeding], the parties were before the court
          repeatedly between Mother’s requests to increase her
          physical custody periods of the minor children and
          multiple contempt petitions and petitions for special
          relief filed by both parties. Among the petitions filed
          by Father are repeated allegations of sexual and
          physical abuse by Mother against the parties’ two
          daughters. Notably, each of those petitions was either
          withdrawn by Father or dismissed by the court after
          hearings. Despite Children and Youth Services and

                                   -2-
J-A20034-23

          law enforcement involvement, none of Father’s
          allegations were substantiated and no further action
          was taken against Mother. None of Father’s petitions
          alleged any misconduct by Mother or anyone in
          Mother’s home against [Child].

          Due to the outstanding [child abuse] indication
          appeal, the most current order prior to [the subject
          proceeding, dated May 6, 2021,] provided that Father
          had primary physical custody of [Child], and Mother
          had partial supervised physical custody on alternating
          Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and
          alternating Sundays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.,
          supervised by the maternal grandmother.

          Also important to the history of this case is the fact
          that in March of 2022, this family was referred by the
          court for counseling with Ms. Mary Pat Melvin
          Scarantino. Following the beginning of counseling,
          the parties’ two daughters began acting aggressively
          and destructively when in Mother’s custody, which
          worsened as time went on.            Because of their
          escalating behaviors and safety concerns, Mother’s
          periods of custody have only included [Child] for the
          past several months. In June of 2022, Mary Pat
          Melvin Scarantino issued a report in which she
          opined that [Child] should return to Mother’s
          primary custody. Following receipt of that report,
          and one (1) week prior to the scheduled
          commencement of [the subject proceeding] in July of
          2022, Father again made an unsubstantiated
          allegation of sexual abuse, this time against the
          maternal grandfather. Father’s allegation resulted in
          an investigation by Children and Youth Services,
          which delayed trial in this matter until December of
          2022. This most recent investigation resulted in an
          unfounded determination, and the case was closed.
          Also, shortly after Ms. Melvin Scarantino’s report,
          Father unilaterally ended [Child]’s sessions with Ms.
          Melvin Scarantino and enrolled [Child] in the
          Children’s Service Center. Father was subsequently
          held in contempt of this court’s order [on] July 7, 2022
          for his actions. This court also ordered that [Child]
          resume sessions with Ms. Melvin Scarantino.

                                   -3-
J-A20034-23

              Also during the above-referenced delay in trial, Father
              attempted to remove [Child] from the Wyoming Valley
              West School District and enroll him in the Graham
              Academy. The hearing on Father’s request to transfer
              [Child]’s school was heard concurrently with trial in
              the above-captioned matter.

              The court was able to complete an in camera interview
              with [Child] on July 7, 2022, however trial did not
              resume in this matter until December 14, 2022 due to
              the outstanding investigation of Father’s allegations
              against the maternal grandfather.

              3  Pursuant to the parties’ custody order dated
              November 9, 2017, this order was followed until
              September of 2019. The September 17, 2019 order
              addressed physical custody[;] however[, it] was silent
              regarding legal custody.

              4 In fact, Father was not even specifically given legal

              custody in the September 17, 2019 order.          His
              authority was limited to enrolling the three (3)
              children in the Crestwood School District and to re-
              engage with the Children’s Service Center. Legal
              custody of the minor children was not addressed again
              until the interim order dated May 6, 2021, wherein it
              was ordered after a record hearing that the parties
              were to share legal custody of all three (3) minor
              children.

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 3-6 (emphasis added; some footnotes omitted).1

____________________________________________

1 Upon thorough review, the certified record supports the findings of the trial

court except that the court held an in camera interview of Child on July 7,
2022. The certified record does not include this transcript. In addition, neither
Father nor Mother indicate in their respective briefs that an in camera
interview occurred on July 7, 2022. However, the parties acknowledge on the
record in open court that the court conducted at least one in camera interview
of Child on an unspecified date, although no transcript exists in the record.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-A20034-23

       The custody trial occurred on December 14, 2022, during which Mother

testified with respect to her request for primary physical custody. Mother also

presented the testimony of Mary Pat Melvin Scarantino, Child’s court-

appointed counselor; R.R., Mother’s fiancé; and J.B., Child’s maternal

grandmother.       Father testified with respect to his desire to maintain the

existing custody order.

       By order dated and entered on December 19, 2022, the trial court

awarded the parties shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody,

and Father partial physical custody every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00

p.m. The order also provided a holiday schedule. Further, the order denied

Father’s emergency petition for special relief, filed on October 20, 2022, for

Child to be enrolled in the Graham Academy.

       On January 18, 2023, Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).        The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion on

February 8, 2023.

       Father raises the following issues for review:

              1.     Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit
                     an error of law in its December 19, 2022 order
                     in that it removes [Father]’s sole primary
                     physical custody of [C]hild and instead awards,
                     grants, and orders the switching of the legal and
____________________________________________

See notes of testimony, 12/14/22 at 137-138. It is important to note that
neither Father nor Mother requested that the court interview Child during the
subject proceeding on December 14, 2022. See id.

                                           -5-
J-A20034-23

                     shared physical custody of [C]hild solely to
                     Mother?

              2.     Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit
                     an error of law, based upon the testimony of
                     record below, in limiting Father’s physical
                     custody of [C]hild without any evidence or
                     testimony that [Father]’s time with [C]hild
                     should be restricted or diminished?

              3.     Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit
                     an error of law, based upon the testimony of
                     record below, and failing to follow the mandates
                     and factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328?

              4.     Were the trial court’s conclusions unreasonable
                     as shown by the evidence of record?

              5.     Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit
                     an error of law by failing to enter a custody
                     order that is in the best interest of [C]hild?

Father’s Brief at 3.2

       We review Father’s issues according to the following scope and standard

of review:

              [T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions
              or inferences made by the trial court from its findings
              of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding
              that has no competent evidence to support it. . . .
              However, this broad scope of review does not vest in
              the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making
              its own independent determination. . . . Thus, an
              appellate court is empowered to determine whether
              the trial court’s incontrovertible factual findings
              support its factual conclusions, but it may not
              interfere with those conclusions unless they are
____________________________________________

2 Father does not raise an issue with respect to the court’s denial of his request

to enroll Child in the Graham Academy, and so we do not address this aspect
of the order.

                                           -6-
J-A20034-23

           unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual
           findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of
           discretion.

           R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237
           (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting Bovard v. Baker, 775
           A.2d 835, 838 (Pa.Super. 2001)). Moreover,

           [O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence,
           we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has
           had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and
           demeanor of the witnesses.

           The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the
           trial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount
           concern of the trial court is the best interest of the
           child. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trial
           court’s consideration of the best interest of the child
           was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find
           any abuse of discretion.

           R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations
           omitted). The test is whether the evidence of record
           supports the trial court’s conclusions. Ketterer v.
           Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super. 2006).

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa.Super. 2014). In addition,

           [T]he discretion that a trial 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 a trial
           court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding
           cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court
           by a printed record.

Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa.Super. 2006) (quoting Jackson

v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa.Super. 2004)).

     The primary concern in custody cases is the best interests of the child.

“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all

                                     -7-
J-A20034-23

factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual,

moral, and spiritual well[-]being.”    Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512

(Pa.Super. 2006) (citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super.

2004)).

      The Child Custody Act requires that trial courts consider the following

sixteen best interest factors when awarding custody:

            § 5328.     Factors to consider when awarding
            custody.

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

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

            (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party
            or member of the party’s household, whether there is
            a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused
            party and which party can better provide adequate
            physical safeguards and supervision of the child.

            (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.

                                      -8-
J-A20034-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

            (13) The level of conflict between the parties and the
            willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with
            one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from
            abuse by another party is not evidence of
            unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

            (14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or
            member of a party’s household.

            (15) The mental and physical condition of a party or
            member of a party’s household.

            (16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a).

      This Court has emphasized that the trial court, as the finder of fact,

determines “which factors are most salient and critical in each particular case.”

M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citing A.D. v. M.A.B.,

                                      -9-
J-A20034-23

989 A.2d 32, 35-36 (Pa.Super. 2010)).              Further, we have held that

Section 5323(d) of the Act “requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory

assessment of the [. . .] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must

file a notice of appeal.”3 C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa.Super. 2013).

____________________________________________

3 In this case, the trial court did not render its assessment of the statutory

factors prior to the appeal deadline. Rather, the court addressed the factors
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, which was after Father filed the notice of appeal.
See Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 8-18. Because Father does not assert this
as an issue in his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and in
the statement of questions involved in his brief, we do not raise it sua sponte
to grant relief. See In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa.Super. 2017)
(“[I]t is well-settled that issues not included in an appellant’s statement of
questions involved and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
are waived.”).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the custody order on appeal
provided, “Either party may request to the Chambers of the undersigned to
issue formal Findings of Fact within five (5) business days of the entry of this
Order. In that event, Findings will be issued prior to Monday, January 16,
2023, in accordance with C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa.Super. 2013).” Order,
12/19/22 at ¶ 15.

In light of this Court’s holding in C.B., we reasoned:

              Ideally, trial courts should address the statutory
              factors, either orally in open court or in a written
              opinion, contemporaneously with the issuance of the
              custody order. If, because of the court’s substantial
              case load or other factors, compliance with the Act is
              not possible contemporaneously with the order, the
              trial court should indicate in the custody order that its
              examination of the factors is forthcoming shortly, so
              as to not impede a litigant’s ability to pursue an appeal
              if the litigant so chooses. This affords the trial court
              some flexibility in carrying out its function, while also
              providing litigants a reasonable amount of time to
              analyze the trial court’s rationale, to determine
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-A20034-23

       Turning to the merits of this appeal, Father’s argument in his brief fails

to comply with the Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure providing,

              The argument shall be divided into as many parts as
              there are questions to be argued; and shall have at
              the head of each part — in distinctive type or in type
              distinctively displayed — the particular point treated
              therein, followed by such discussion and citation of the
              parties as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Father raises the above-cited five questions in his brief, but

his argument is divided into the following two parts: (1) the court order “is

against the weight of the evidence and is an abuse of discretion,” and (2) the

order “did not consider the best interest of” Child. See Father’s Brief at 9,

13; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs. . . shall conform in all material respects

with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the

particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the

defects are in the brief . . . of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or

other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”) Because the defects in Father’s

brief are not substantial, we address them. As Father’s arguments are related,

we address them together.

____________________________________________

              whether to appeal, and to decipher which issues might
              be meritorious in that appeal.

              C.B., 65 A.3d at 955. In the instant matter, the trial
              court erred by failing to comply with C.B. and instead
              making its timely assessment of the statutory factors
              conditional upon either party’s request.

                                          - 11 -
J-A20034-23

      Father baldly asserts that the trial court failed to consider all the

evidence and properly weigh it. Specifically, Father argues that he is the more

stable parent, and he can offer Child the more stable living environment. See

Father’s Brief at 18. In addition, without referencing any evidence, he asserts

that the court awarded Mother primary physical custody based upon her

gender. See id. at 10-12; see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(b) (“In making a

determination under subsection (a), no party shall receive preference based

upon gender in any award granted under this chapter.”). Father also asserts

that the court “ignored” his opposition to Child being separated from his two

older sisters who reside in his custody if Mother is awarded primary physical

custody of him. Id. at 14. These assertions are meritless.

      In assessing the Section 5328(a) factors, the court weighed none of

them in Father’s favor. The court weighed (2), (3), (5), (11), and (12) equally

between the parties. The court found (14)–(16) inapplicable in this case. See

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 6-18. We discern no abuse of discretion by the

court in applying the relevant law to the sustainable facts of this case.

      The court found determinative that Father “has been engaging in a

course of conduct designed to alienate [C]hild’s affections from” Mother. Id.

at 8 (footnotes omitted).       The court explained, in assessing Section

5328(a)(1), as follows.

            Father was asked during his testimony what he tells
            [Child] about maintaining a relationship with Mother,
            and Father was unable to give a straight answer.
            Father did testify that he “absolutely” talks with

                                     - 12 -
J-A20034-23

            [Child] about the custody case, which the court
            believes certainly would have an impact on [Child]’s
            relationship with Mother. Also of significance, Father
            was questioned regarding his position on encouraging
            the parties’ other two children, B.S. and S.S., to have
            a relationship with Mother due to the fact that they
            both are currently estranged from Mother. Father
            agreed that he has not made any efforts to reconnect
            his daughters with Mother. Father testified that “it’s
            their choice” whether they want to speak with Mother
            or not. Although one of the daughters is now eighteen
            (18) years old, the second daughter is still a minor
            and living under Father’s roof. Father claimed that if
            [Child] did not want to have a relationship with Mother
            that he would tell [Child] that maintaining a
            relationship with Mother is “in his best interest;”
            however, the court did not find that testimony to be
            credible. Father’s complete lack of action regarding
            his daughters having a relationship with Mother raises
            great concerns for the court that he will act in the
            same manner with regard to [Child]’s relationship with
            Mother.

            The court does not believe that Father will encourage
            and permit continuing and frequent contact between
            [Child] and Mother.      To the contrary, the court
            believes that if Father were to retain primary physical
            custody, [Child]’s relationship with Mother would
            deteriorate to the point of non-existence, as is
            currently happening with his two older sisters and
            Mother. The court does believe that Mother would
            encourage [Child] to maintain a healthy relationship
            with Father if [Child] were living primarily with her.

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 8-9; see also notes of testimony, 12/14/22 at

108-109, 123-128, 131 (Father’s testimony supporting the court’s findings).

      It is important to note Mother’s testimony that her relationship with

Child was presently “Good. Very, very good.” Id. at 37. Mother testified that

she also had a “very good” relationship with her two daughters prior to losing

                                    - 13 -
J-A20034-23

primary physical custody in 2019, and even during an unspecified initial period

of exercising supervised physical custody.      Id. at 39-40.    However, she

explained that “further on, [S.S.] and [B.S.], I don’t know what happened.

They were just destroying my mother’s house,” where Mother’s supervised

visits occurred. Id. at 34. Mother testified that she is not seeking custody of

her fifteen-year-old daughter, B.S., “[b]ecause of her behaviors. I think if she

did come home, I think she would do damage to my house. And I think she

could put me in danger.” Id. at 36.

      In its related assessment of Section 5328(a)(8), the court explained that

it credited the testimony of the family’s court-appointed counselor, Ms.

Scarantino, and found it determinative in fashioning the custody order. See

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 16. The court aptly found as follows regarding

Ms. Scarantino’s testimony:

            She testified that [Child] has been compromised
            emotionally and psychologically by Father.          As
            mentioned earlier, Ms. Scarantino testified that
            [Child] reported to her that he has no friends, is
            experiencing bullying at school, and feels that no one
            pays attention to him at Father’s house. [Child] also
            reported to Ms. Scarantino that Father is the only
            person that he socializes with. However, [Child]’s
            relationship with Father is one based on fear and
            intimidation. Ms. Scarantino first issued a report to
            the parties’ counsel and to the court dated June 9,
            2022, which addresses these concerns.

            Ms. Scarantino testified that following the parties’
            receipt of her June 9, 2022 report, she observed a
            “dramatic change” in [Child]’s behavior, noting that
            he regressed to refusing to answer questions, looking
            to Father before answering any questions, and then

                                     - 14 -
J-A20034-23

             began expressing a desire to stay with Father merely
             because he had “a lot of toys” at Father’s residence.
             Ms. Scarantino additionally testified that based upon
             her observations, [Child] is clearly “vehemently
             afraid” of Father. She noted that she had also
             observed a stark change in [Child]’s body language
             when Father enters the room.

             Prior to issuing her first report to counsel and the
             court, [Child] had consistently been forthcoming with
             Ms. Scarantino, and had expressed a clear desire to
             return to living with Mother and a fear of Father. Ms.
             Scarantino ultimately testified that, in her professional
             opinion, [Child] will be “very seriously damaged” if he
             remains residing primarily with Father.               Ms.
             Scarantino testified that Child has a strong, loving
             bond with Mother, and that Mother is very nurturing
             to [Child].

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 15-16; see also notes of testimony, 12/14/22

at 9-14, 19, 21-23, 27-28 (Ms. Scarantino’s testimony supporting the court’s

findings).

      In addition to finding Ms. Scarantino’s testimony credible, the trial court

stated:

             This court has also had the benefit of interacting with,
             and observing, this family throughout many court
             proceedings, including trial. The court shares the
             same concerns regarding Father’s escalating conduct
             and agrees that [Child] will be compromised if he
             continues to reside primarily with Father.

             Father’s actions throughout the lengthy history in this
             case, particularly since 2019, demonstrate a clear,
             and escalating, deliberate intent to alienate the
             affections of the children from Mother. Unfortunately,
             his repeated actions have been successful in
             effectually ending the relationship [of] the parties’ two
             older daughters, S.S. and B.S., with Mother. The
             silver lining in this very troubling case is that there is

                                      - 15 -
J-A20034-23

            still time to preserve [Child]’s relationship with
            Mother. However, that goal cannot be achieved with
            Father having any significant period of custody with
            [C]hild to the exclusion of Mother.

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 16-17.         The testimonial and documentary

evidence supports the court’s findings.

      Indeed, the record reveals that, during 2021, and prior to Mother and

her boyfriend receiving a favorable ruling in their appeal from the indicated

child abuse report and the report ultimately being expunged from the

ChildLine registry, Father filed custody pleadings that included new allegations

against Mother and her boyfriend. Notes of testimony, 12/14/22 at 121-122.

Father testified on cross-examination:

            Q. The court has addressed all those issues, correct?

            A. Yes.

            Q. Did anything ever happen to [Mother] as a result
            of you filing those petitions?

            A. No.

            Q. The police actually investigated at one point,
            correct?

            A. Yes.

            Q. And Children and Youth?

            A. Yes.

Id. at 122. Nevertheless, Father repeated the same allegations as his reason

why Mother’s custody award should remain supervised. Id. at 121-122.

      Father’s testimony continued on cross-examination:

                                     - 16 -
J-A20034-23

            Q. So you still believe after all that, [those allegations
            are] still an issue?

            A. I believe it’s an issue when the proper — steps
            didn’t get taken. Like, didn’t get taken care of.

            Q. What steps?

            A. Well, I mean, just, the — that my — that they didn’t
            — they didn’t take proper steps to investigate.

            Q. So you believe that there was just the failure of the
            system?

            A. Yes. Correct.

            Q. And that all those [allegations] are accurate?

            A. Yes. Correct.

Id. at 122-123.

      With respect to Father’s bald assertion that he is the more stable parent

and would provide a more stable living environment for Child, there is no

record evidence to support this. Father simply argues, without explanation,

that he is more stable “considering [Mother’s] past problems and current

limitations. . . .” Father’s Brief at 18. To the extent that Father refers to the

report indicating Mother a perpetrator of child abuse, this status was reversed

by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services in October of 2022, and

so we reject his claim.

      Moreover, the court acknowledged “that stability is very important in a

child’s life. However, stability is important when it is healthy and safe for the

child. The court does not find that to be the case here. It is clear to the court

                                     - 17 -
J-A20034-23

that [C]hild is exhibiting concerning signs of stress and anxiety while being in

Father’s care. The court believes that it is critical for [Child] to be in a safe

environment, in schooling that accommodates his individualized education

program, and for Child to remain in counseling.” Trial court opinion, 2/8/23

at 12-13.

      Specifically, the court found:

            Even though [Child] has been consistently residing
            with Father for a long period of time, he has been
            experiencing a great deal of stress. [Child] has been
            in counseling with Ms. Scarantino since [the court
            order in] March of 2022, however that counseling was
            interrupted for a period of time by Father, who
            unilaterally decided to terminate sessions when he
            became unhappy with Ms. Scarantino’s report.
            [Child]’s counseling with Ms. Scarantino has since
            resumed following a contempt hearing [and the court
            ruling against Father] in the summer of 2022. [During
            the subject proceeding], Ms. Scarantino testified that
            [Child] is very afraid of Father. She additionally
            testified that [Child] has been experiencing bullying at
            school, and he has reported to her that he has no
            friends and that the only person he socializes with is
            Father.

            Mother testified that she observed behavior changes
            in [Child] when it is time for him to return to Father’s
            custody.    Alarmingly, it was reported that when
            [Child] is about to return to Father’s home after his
            visit with Mother ends, [Child] has accidents where he
            defecates in his clothing. This was testified to by
            Mother and maternal grandmother, and has happened
            on a number of occasions. These accidents have
            required that [C]hild be showered and changed.
            Father acknowledged that[C]hild does suffer from
            bathroom accidents, however he blames the accidents
            on Mother not properly potty training [Child], despite
            the fact that [Child] is now eight (8) years old and has
            been primarily in Father’s care since September of

                                       - 18 -
J-A20034-23

           2019. Father claims he has been “working on [Child’s
           bathroom accidents]” for the past three (3) years.
           Father offered no explanation for [Child]’s accidents.

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 11-12; see also notes of testimony, 12/14/22

at 9-12, 15, 21-23, 27-29, 52-53, 86-87 (testimony of Ms. Scarantino,

Mother, and the maternal grandmother supporting the court’s findings.)

     The trial court also considered the stability of Child’s schooling and that

he would have to change school districts if he resided in Mother’s primary

physical custody. The court found it significant that, even if Child, then in

second grade and assigned an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”),

remained in Father’s primary physical custody, it was “not Father’s intent to

continue [Child]’s education in” Wyoming Valley West School District, the

school district he currently attended. Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 10; see

also notes of testimony, 12/14/22 at 24, 26. The court explained:

           In fact, along with his petition for full custody of
           [C]hild, Father additionally filed an emergency
           petition for special relief seeking to transfer [C]hild
           from the Wyoming Valley West School District to the
           Graham Academy, which is a school for children with
           autism and/or emotional challenges.

           [C]hild has never been, and to date still has not been,
           diagnosed with autism or with an emotional condition
           that would require specialized schooling. This decision
           was also not discussed with, or agreed to, by Mother.
           Father testified that neither he nor his wife are
           employed, and their family survives solely off of their
           children’s disability checks. When probed regarding
           why he believes [Child] is autistic, Father testified that
           he believes [Child] is autistic because [Child]
           sometimes “jumps up and down and flaps his hands.”
           Father has no medical or otherwise relevant training

                                    - 19 -
J-A20034-23

            in this regard. Father testified that he and his wife
            toured the Graham Academy one time in the summer
            of 2022, and “someone” who took him on the tour told
            him that [Child]’s [IEP] would follow him to the
            Graham Academy. Father admitted that he did not
            discuss [C]hild’s [IEP] with this individual. Father was
            unable to provide any documentation that the Graham
            Academy was the appropriate school for [C]hild, had
            accepted [Child], or that [Child]’s [IEP] would, in fact,
            transfer to the Graham Academy. The court has a
            serious concern that Father’s intent to obtain an
            autism diagnosis for [Child] is financially motivated.

Trial court opinion, 2/8/23 at 10-11 (footnote omitted); see also notes of

testimony, 12/14/22 at 26, 29, 41-42, 106, 110, 115-120, 132 (testimony by

Ms. Scarantino, Mother, and Father supporting the court’s findings).

      Finally, it is important to note that, as found by the court above, the

sole source of income in Father’s household is the Social Security disability

payments received by Child, S.S., and B.S., and his wife’s son.         Notes of

testimony, 12/14/22 at 109, 131. Father testified that he and his wife were

last employed “last year.”    Id.   Although the record does not include any

information regarding why S.S. and B.S. receive Social Security disability,

Father testified that his wife’s son receives it due to being diagnosed with

autism.   Id. at 131-132.     Father testified that Child also receives Social

Security disability for “[h]is dyslexia and other problems that he has.” Id. at

132. The only other medical condition of Child that Father described was “that

he did have a problem with diabetes. However, it [has] been under control….”

Id. at 110-111.    The record does not verify that Child is diagnosed with

diabetes. In any event, there is ample evidence that Father had a financial

                                     - 20 -
J-A20034-23

motive in seeking an autism diagnosis for Child. See id. at 110, 115-116,

132 (Father’s testimony that he relayed to the Children’s Service Center

alleged autistic symptoms of Child).

      In conclusion, Father’s bald assertions in this appeal have no merit. The

trial court’s consideration of Child’s best interests was careful and thorough,

and we discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/06/2023

                                    - 21 -