Court Opinion

ID: 9901705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 14:08:38.484859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:37.844556
License: Public Domain

J-A22020-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 TASHA L. DODD                            :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
               v.                         :
                                          :
                                          :
 ADAM J. BOWSER                           :
                                          :
                     Appellant            :     No. 544 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Dated April 13, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Civil Division at
                          No(s): 2022-0986-CIV

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                      FILED: November 21, 2023

      Appellant, Adam J. Bowser (“Father”), appeals from the order entered

April 13, 2023, modifying Father’s custody arrangement with Tasha L. Dodd

(“Mother”) regarding the parties’ three children, A.F.B., A.C.B., and A.A.B.

(collectively, the “Children.”). We affirm.

      The facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Mother and

Father

         were formally married to each other and have [three] . . .
         children that were the product of the marriage: A.F.B., age 17,
         A.C.B., age 14, and A.A.B., age 10. The parties [] divorced on
         April 29, 2021. The related marriage settlement agreement
         dated December 12, 2020 had a section on custody providing
         Mother with primary physical custody and Father with partial
         custody to take place every other weekend from Friday at 5:00
         p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m.

Trial Court Memorandum, 11/18/22, at 1-2.
J-A22020-23

       Mother filed a complaint for custody and a proposed notice of relocation

on July 29, 2022. Id. at 2. Father opposed Mother’s relocation. Id. An

expediated hearing on Mother’s proposed relocation was held on November

17, 2022. The next day, the trial court entered an order granting Mother’s

proposed relocation. Trial Court Order, 11/18/22.1      Because Mother did not

propose any changes to the custody-related terms of the parties’ December

12, 2020 marriage settlement agreement, no changes to the parties’ custody

agreement were made at that time. Id.; see also N.T. Relocation Hearing,

11/17/22, at 8-9.

       Father filed a counter-claim for modification of custody on December 2,

2022. In addition, on December 6, 2022, Father moved for reconsideration

of the trial court’s November 18, 2022 order.              In his motion for

reconsideration, Father not only renewed his objection to Mother’s relocation,

but also claimed that the trial court erred in granting relocation following only

a two-hour hearing.        Father’s Motion for Reconsideration, 12/6/22, at *1

(unpaginated). The trial court issued an order on December 8, 2022, denying

reconsideration. Trial Court Order, 12/8/22, at 1. In so doing, the trial court

specifically held that “the parties were given adequate time at the [November

17, 2022] hearing to present evidence as to all the relocation factors and

argue their respective positions as to relocation” and, as such, its “decision to
____________________________________________

1 A.F.B., who was 17 at the time, elected to remain in Kittanning,
Pennsylvania, with her grandparents to finish her senior year of high school.
As such, she did not relocate with Mother and was not a subject of the trial
court’s November 18, 2022 relocation order.

                                           -2-
J-A22020-23

grant the proposed relocation was supported by the record created by the

parties.” Id.

      After the trial court disposed of Father’s motion for reconsideration, the

parties proceeded to a custody trial on April 4, 2023. At the outset of the

hearing, the trial court adopted the testimony proffered during the November

17, 2022 relocation hearing, as well as the exhibits submitted by the parties.

N.T. Trial, 4/4/23, at 6-7. Thereafter, the trial court received testimony from,

inter alia, Mother, Father, and the Children. Id. at 7-250. On April 13, 2023,

the trial court issued an order in which it “reaffirm[ed] its approval of Mother’s

relocation” and ordered the parties to continue shared legal custody and allow

Mother to exercise primary physical custody of A.C.B., and A.A.B., subject to

Father’s periods of partial physical custody every other weekend, and

“physical custody of A.F.B. as the parties may agree.”               Trial Court

Memorandum, 4/13/23, at 11. This timely appeal followed.

      Father raises the following issues on appeal:

       1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of
          law when it considered the November 1[8], 2022 interim
          order granting Mother’s request for a temporary relocation
          pending trial as a final order of court and failed to consider
          evidence related to the relocation factors set forth in 23
          Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 at the final hearing on April 4, 2023, and
          its final order of court dated April 12, 2023[?]

       2. Did the trial court abuse is discretion and err as a matter of
          law when it denied Father appropriate notice and due
          process when it treated the November 18, 2022 order as a
          final order of court when the November 17, 2022[] hearing
          was scheduled to address the issue of a temporary relocation
          and Father was not afforded the opportunity to litigate the

                                      -3-
J-A22020-23

          issue of a final relocation at the April 4, 2023 hearing, despite
          his request for reconsideration?

       3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of
          law in reaffirming its approval of Mother’s relocation without
          setting forth its reasons for doing so or addressing any of the
          relocation factors in its memorandum and order to
          incorporate additional testimony and evidence presented at
          the April 4, 2023 hearing?

       4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of
          law in its application of the custody factors set forth in 23
          Pa.C.S.A. § 5338(a)?

Father’s Brief at 4 (superfluous capitalization omitted).

      In custody cases, our standard and scope of review are as follows:

       In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type
       and our standard [of review] 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.

R.S. v. T.T., 113 A.3d 1254, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 117 A.3d

298 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

      We have stated:

       the 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

                                      -4-
J-A22020-23

       proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court
       by a printed record.

R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201, 208 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

Thus, we will only find an abuse of discretion “if in reaching a conclusion, the

court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by

the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality,

prejudice, bias, or ill will[.]” Estate of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 128 A.3d

273, 282 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

      Father’s first three issues relate to the actions taken by the trial court

with respect to Mother’s proposed relocation. Initially, Father claims that the

trial court abused its discretion by granting Mother’s request for relocation

following the November 17, 2022 hearing because it was only two hours and,

as such, was not a “full evidentiary hearing.” Father’s Brief at 7. Then, Father

challenges the trial court’s decision to “reaffirm” its decision granting Mother’s

relocation in its April 12, 2023 custody order. Id. at 16. In Father’s view, the

trial court’s November 18, 2022 order only “granted [Mother] temporary

relocation pending trial.” Id. at 15. Thus, Father claims that the trial court

erred as a matter of law by “reaffirming” its decision regarding Mother’s

relocation without considering the evidence proffered by Father during the

April 3, 2023 hearing and, further, in failing to set forth its reason for during

so in its April 13, 2023 order. Id. at 11-25. In his final issue, Father claims

that the trial court abused its discretion in its application of the custody factors

set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5338(a).

                                       -5-
J-A22020-23

      In general, a party is not permitted to relocate with children unless every

individual with custody rights to the children consents or the party obtains

court approval. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(b). If a party seeks to relocate, he or

she must “notify every other individual who has custody rights” of the

proposed relocation, as well as other information, to enable the “party entitled

to receive notice” to file an “an objection to the proposed relocation.”      23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 (c)(1), (c)(3), and (d).

       If a counter-affidavit regarding relocation is filed with the court
       which indicates the nonrelocating party objects either to the
       proposed relocation or to the modification of the custody order
       consistent with the proposal for revised custody schedule, the
       court shall modify the existing custody order only after holding
       a hearing to establish the terms and conditions of the order
       pursuant to the relocation indicating the rights, if any, of the
       nonrelocating parties.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(f). With regard to a hearing, Section 5337(g) states:

       (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (3), the court shall hold an
       expedited full hearing on the proposed relocation after a timely
       objection has been filed and before the relocation occurs.

       (2) Except as set forth in paragraph (3), the court may, on its
       own motion, hold an expedited full hearing on the proposed
       relocation before the relocation occurs.

       (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), if the court finds
       that exigent circumstances exist, the court may approve the
       relocation pending an expedited full hearing.

       (4) If the court approves the proposed relocation, it shall:

            (i) modify any existing custody order; or

            (ii) establish the terms and conditions of a custody order.

                                      -6-
J-A22020-23

Id. “The party proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that

the relocation will serve the best interest of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i).

      To determine whether to grant a proposed relocation, the court must

consider the following factors:

       (1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of
       the child's relationship with the party proposing to relocate and
       with the nonrelocating party, siblings and other significant
       persons in the child's life.

       (2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the
       likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical,
       educational and emotional development, taking into
       consideration any special needs of the child.

       (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
       nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody
       arrangements, considering the logistics and financial
       circumstances of the parties.

       (4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and
       maturity of the child.

       (5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either
       party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the
       other party.

       (6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of
       life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not
       limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational
       opportunity.

       (7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of
       life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or
       emotional benefit or educational opportunity.

       (8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or
       opposing the relocation.

       (9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or
       member of the party's household and whether there is a
       continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party.

                                      -7-
J-A22020-23

          (10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). “Each party has the burden of establishing that the

integrity of that party's motives in either seeking the relocation or seeking to

prevent the relocation.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(i)(2).

       When making a relocation decision, if the court is also called upon to

render a custody decision, the “court must consider all ten relocation factors

and all [16] custody factors.” A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 836 (Pa. Super.

2013).2     Section 5328 sets forth the custody factors to be considered.      It

states:

          (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
____________________________________________

2 If, however, a trial court’s decision regarding relocation does not involve a

custody decision, the court need not consider all ten relocation factors and all
16 custody factors. See M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 930 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(stating that “because the trial court did not decide physical or legal custody,
or change the amount of custodial time that either party had with the children,
its failure to examine the [Section 5328(a)] factors was not error”); see also
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 82 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating, “[i]n accordance
with proper practice under [S]ection 5337, where the nonrelocating party
merely objects to modification of the existing custody order in his[, or her,
response to the petition for relocation], the trial court will not perform a best
interests of the child analysis pursuant to the [S]ection 5328(a) factors, but
will instead decide whether the existing custody order should be modified
pursuant to the section 5337(h) factors”).

                                           -8-
J-A22020-23

          which party can better provide adequate               physical
          safeguards and supervision of the child.

          (2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)
          (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement
          with protective services).

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

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

          (5) The availability of extended family.

          (6) The child's sibling relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    -9-
J-A22020-23

            (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).

       We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the

certified record, and the opinions of the able trial court judge, the Honorable

Chase G. McClister. We conclude that Father is not entitled to relief in this

case for the reasons expressed in Judge McClister’s November 18, 2022, April

13, 2023, and May 23, 2023 opinions. Therefore, we affirm based on Judge

McClister’s opinions and adopt them as our own. In any future filing with this

or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach copies of

Judge McClister’s November 18, 2022, April 13, 2023, and May 23, 2023

opinions.

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 11/21/2023

                                     - 10 -