Court Opinion

ID: 9366385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:08:24.761898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.812602
License: Public Domain

J-A29015-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 J.C.                                      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                     Appellant             :
                                           :
                                           :
               v.                          :
                                           :
                                           :
 B.W.                                      :   No. 460 WDA 2022

              Appeal from the Order Entered March 24, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Civil Division at No(s):
                           CP-42-CD-491-2009

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                       FILED; January 26, 2023

        J.C. (Mother) appeals from the March 24, 2022 order that awarded

Mother and B.W. (Father) joint legal custody with Mother having physical

custody on weekdays and Father having physical custody three weekends per

month of their son, B.C-W. (Child), born in August of 2008. After review, we

affirm.

        In its Opinion and Order issued on March 24, 2022, the trial court

provided the background of this matter, stating:

               The parties are the natural parents of B.C-W., age thirteen
        (13). This matter commenced with [Mother’s] Amended Petition
        for Emergency Relief, filed August 11, 2021, which was treated as
        a Petition to Modify Custody by Order dated October 21, 2021. On
        August 16, 2021, [Mother] filed a Petition for Appointment of [a]
        Guardian ad litem (GAL), which the [c]ourt denied.1 On October
        26, 2021, with the agreement of both parties, the [c]ourt
        [o]rdered a custody evaluation and appointed Dr. Robert Maiden
        as Custody Evaluator.
J-A29015-22

            1 On October 1, 2021, [Mother] filed a Motion for
            Reconsideration requesting the [c]ourt reconsider[]
            appointing a GAL, which the [c]ourt denied following a
            hearing on October 12, 2021.

            On November 30, 2021, [Father] filed a Petition for Civil
      Disobedience of Custody Order, alleging that [Mother] was
      withholding custody and that he had not seen B.C-W. since July
      2021, in violation of the parties’ existing Custody Order filed
      November 23, 2010, and in violation of the [c]ourt’s October 21,
      2021 Order. A hearing was held on the Petition on January 7,
      2022. It was undisputed that [Father] had not exercised a period
      of physical custody since July 2021, despite numerous [c]ourt
      [o]rders directing the parties to comply with their Custody Order.
      [Mother] argued that B.C-W. refused to go to [Father’s] periods
      of custody and that she could not force him. The [c]ourt deferred
      decision on the Petition for Civil Disobedience and issued an
      Interim Order to ensure [Father] received at least some periods
      of custody until the parties’ custody trial.

            The parties are currently following an Interim Custody Order
      dated January 10, 2022. Under its terms, the parties share legal
      custody and [Father] has periods of custody two (2) times per
      week for a period of three (3) hours. Also on January 10, 2022,
      the [c]ourt issued an [o]rder appointing legal counsel for B.C-W.,
      denying [Mother’s] Second Motion to Appoint a Guardian ad litem,
      and scheduling an expanded custody trial, among other things.

           Argument on all other outstanding motions was held on
      February 10, 2022, including argument on [Mother’s] Motion to
      Disqualify [Father’s] counsel, which the [c]ourt denied.      An
      expanded custody trial was ultimately held on March 3, 2022, and
      March 4, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion and Order (TCOO), 3/24/2022, at 1-2. In the TCOO, the

court set forth findings of fact, a complete list of exhibits, and a list of all the

witnesses that testified at the March 2022 custody trial.          The TCOO also

contained a discussion directed at all sixteen custody factors, identified in 23

Pa.C.S. § 5328(a), and a detailed custody schedule.

                                       -2-
J-A29015-22

       Mother then filed this appeal.1 She also filed a seven-page Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal that contained

twelve issues with the second issue listing twelve sub-issues. Despite this

extensive Concise Statement, Mother’s brief only states the following two

issues:

           1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
              modify the parties’ current custody order based upon
              substantial and credible evidence that contact between
              [Father] and [C]hild was not in the best interests of the
              [C]hild?

           2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the
              [Father’s] Petition for Civil Disobedience of a Custody Order
              when there was no evidence upon which the [c]ourt could
              find that the [Mother] possessed the requisite intent to be
              held in contempt?

Mother’s brief at 32.

       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
____________________________________________

1 We note that the order from which Mother appeals directs that a status
conference would be held in June of 2022. Despite the scheduling of the status
conference, we conclude that the March 24, 2022 order constitutes a final and
appealable child custody order because no custody claims are outstanding.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that “disposes of all claims
and of all parties”); see also G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996)
(a custody order is final and appealable after the trial court has concluded its
hearings on the matter and the resultant order resolves the pending custody
claims between the parties). It is apparent that the trial court scheduled the
status conference to review compliance with the March 24, 2022 order rather
than because there were any claims outstanding.

                                           -3-
J-A29015-22

      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).

      As noted above, the trial court issued the TCOO on March 24, 2022,

following the custody trial. Then, after Mother filed her appeal and her Concise

Statement, the trial court filed an opinion to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),

providing the facts, referencing the standard of review, and directing answers

                                      -4-
J-A29015-22

and analyzing all of Mother’s issues set forth in her concise statement. See

Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 5/9/2022.

      Essentially, Mother’s arguments are requesting that this Court re-find

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

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.” C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443

(Pa. Super. 2012). 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.”   E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa.

Super. 2011). 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 opinion authored by the Honorable

Christopher G. Hauser of the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County, dated

May 9, 2022. We conclude that Judge Hauser’s opinion properly disposes of

the issues presented by Mother in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial

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

      Order affirmed.

                                     -5-
J-A29015-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/26/2023

                          -6-
Circulated 01/04/2023 08:21 AM