Court Opinion

ID: 9399357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 17:09:45.134028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.676692
License: Public Domain

J-A11025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    WAYNE AND DENISE BAILEY                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    R.N. AND C.I.                              :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1356 WDA 2022
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    GINA KNEPPER AND BRENDA                    :
    KNEPPER                                    :
                                               :
                       Appellants              :

                 Appeal from the Order Dated October 21, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Orphans' Court at
                               No(s): 364-2021

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                       FILED: June 2, 2023

        L.W.N., born in March of 2017, and D.M.N., born in May of 2019,

(collectively Children) are the subjects of this custody case. Brenda Knepper

(Brenda), the maternal great-grandmother, and Gina Knepper (Gina), the

maternal grandmother, (collectively Appellants) were the Intervenors below.

Wayne and Denise Bailey (the Baileys), the paternal grandmother and step-

grandfather, were the Plaintiffs below. C.I. (Mother) is the natural mother of

the Children and R.N. (Father) is the natural father of the Children. Following

our review, we affirm.
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11025-23

      Following a number of hearings, the trial court issued a Memorandum

Opinion (TCMO), dated October 21, 2022, in which it set forth the factual

background of this case and listed the petitions filed by the various parties.

The trial court also included a discussion directed at all sixteen custody factors

identified in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) and the relocation factors contained in 23

Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). The trial court further included an Order (TCO), dated

October 21, 2022, detailing a custody schedule.

   After the TCMO and the TCO were issued by the trial court, Appellants

appealed to this Court and raised the following three issues for our review:

   1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of law
      when it awarded primary physical custody to paternal
      grandparents despite the dangers posed by a household member,
      namely, Father, especially when 23 Pa.C.S.[] [§] 5328(a) requires
      the [c]ourt to give weighted consideration to the factors which
      affect the safety of the [C]hild[ren]?

   2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its determination that
      Appellants should not share legal custody of the minor [C]hildren?

   3. Did [the trial court] abuse its discretion by awarding paternal
      grandparents primary physical custody when the custody factors
      weighed heavily in favor of Appellants?

Appellants’ brief at 4.

      The trial court then issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Opinion (1925 Opinion),

dated December 20, 2022, that provided a summary of the case, a list of the

issues raised by Appellants, a reference to the TCMO with regard to the first

and third issues raised and a discussion supplementing its brief statement

discussing the second issue in the TCMO. See 1925 Opinion, 12/20/22.

                                      -2-
J-A11025-23

      The relevant 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.

V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

Furthermore, we note that:

            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 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)).

A.H. v. C.M., 58 A.3d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, “[w]hen a trial

court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is paramount.”

S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

      Appellants’ arguments are essentially requesting that this Court re-find

facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, our standard of review

                                      -3-
J-A11025-23

does not permit us to function in this manner. Rather, our standard of review

requires that we “accept findings of the trial court that are supported by

competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making

independent factual determinations.”      V.B., 55 A.3d at 97.     Moreover, 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.”

Id.   We do not conclude that that is the situation here.       The trial court’s

findings are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its

conclusions are not unreasonable.

      We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable

law, and the thorough, well-reasoned TCMO, dated October 21, 2022, and the

1925 Opinion, dated December 20, 2022, both that were authored by the

Honorable Brandi J. Hershey of the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County.

We conclude that Judge Hershey’s opinions properly dispose of the issues

presented by Appellants in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt both of the trial

court’s opinions as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis.

      Order affirmed.

                                      -4-
J-A11025-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2023

                          -5-