Court Opinion

ID: 9366692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:08:09.246872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.326835
License: Public Domain

J-S38001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    RAJIV RAGHAVAN                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    KENDRA D. JOHNSON                          :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1737 EDA 2022
    APPEAL OF: USHA RAGHAVAN AND               :
    VIJAY RAGHAVAN                             :

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 14, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations
                             at No(s): 0C1400289

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                           FILED JANUARY 27, 2023

       Usha     Raghavan       and    Vijay    Raghavan   (collectively,   “Paternal

Grandparents”) appeal from the order awarding Kendra Johnson (“Mother”)

sole legal and physical custody of D.J. (“Child”), born in February 2013.1 We

affirm.

____________________________________________

1 The order did not award Child’s father, Rajiv Raghavan (“Father”), any legal
or physical custody. Father did not file a separate appeal and is not a party
to the instant appeal.
J-S38001-22

       We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history as follows.2

Mother and Father are the biological parents of Child. Father commenced the

underlying custody action in March of 2014. The trial court issued an interim

custody order in October 2014 awarding Mother primary physical and sole

legal custody of Child. The court awarded Father supervised physical custody

of Child on alternate Sundays. The trial court directed Paternal Grandparents,

with whom Father resided in Westchester County, New York, to be present

during Father’s custodial times.3 In November 2015, the trial court awarded

Mother and Father shared legal custody. The court further awarded Mother

primary physical custody and Father “supervised partial physical custody”4 at

Paternal    Grandparents’      home     for    approximately   one   week   over   the

Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and partial physical custody one week

____________________________________________

2The trial court aptly recounted the full factual and procedural history in its
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). See Trial Court Opinion, 8/10/22, at
1-7.

3 As discussed further below, the record indicates Father has a history of
domestic violence as well as mental illness and substance abuse. See, e.g.,
N.T., 6/14/22, at 6-7, 26-27, 100-01, 110-11, 117-22, 133-35; id. at 137,
Ex. G-2.

4 We observe that the Child Custody Act (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-
5340, does not provide for an award of “visitation” or “supervised partial
physical custody.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(a). Rather, the Act provides for
“supervised physical custody,” defined as, “[c]ustodial time during which an
agency or an adult designated by the court or agreed upon by the parties
monitors the interaction between the child and the individual with those
rights.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5322(a), 5323(a). As such, we consider the award
to be supervised physical custody and refer to it as such herein.

                                           -2-
J-S38001-22

every month. Mother and Father each petitioned to modify the custody order

in 2017, and in January 2018, the trial court entered a temporary order

awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody, and Father physical

custody to be supervised by Paternal Grandparents.5

        Relying on their involvement with Child as supervisors of Father’s

physical custody, Paternal Grandparents filed a petition to intervene in

January 2018, and a complaint in October 2018, requesting shared legal and

partial physical custody. Pursuant to an order entered December 19, 2018

addressing all outstanding petitions, the trial court awarded Mother sole legal

and primary physical custody of Child.           The court, having determined that

Paternal Grandparents established standing at the time, awarded Father and

Paternal Grandparents physical custody on the second Sunday of every other

month under supervision by a neutral organization as agreed by the parties.

Absent agreement, this supervised physical custody would take place at the

court nursery. See Order, 12/19/18.6

        On July 12, 2019, Paternal Grandparents filed the instant petition to

modify the custody order in pursuit of partial physical custody. The trial court

issued a series of temporary orders providing for virtual visitation and then

expanding Paternal Grandparents’ custody to monthly partial physical custody

____________________________________________

5   Mother has maintained sole legal custody since this time.

6   No party filed an appeal from this order.

                                           -3-
J-S38001-22

in the Philadelphia area with Father not to be present, in addition to monthly

virtual visits. In the interim, Father filed a petition to modify the order seeking

to be present during Paternal Grandparents’ custodial time.                See N.T.,

6/14/22, at 7 (trial court noting Father’s petition to modify). On June 14,

2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on Paternal Grandparents’ and

Father’s petitions to modify the order. Both Mother and Paternal Grandparents

were present and represented by counsel. Father declined to appear, and his

attorney accordingly withdrew his petition.        See id. at 6-7.    Mother and

Paternal Grandparents testified on their own behalf.

      The   record   reveals    the   following:   Father   lives   with    Paternal

Grandparents.     See N.T., 6/14/22, at 26-28.        Father is diagnosed with

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, for which he had been treating with his

current doctor on and off since 2009 and taking medication. See id. at 133-

34; see also id. at 137, Ex. G-2. Mother testified that Father’s relationship

with Paternal Grandparents contains elements of violence. See id. at 100,

110. She explained, “There’s a lot of aggression. There’s a lot of trying to

control each other, threatening each other, throwing things at each other.

They do become violent.” Id. at 100. Mother further testified that Father

“will throw things through the walls or punch at the walls, and there was

damage to the home when I was there, from him throwing things at his

mother.” Id. at 110. Paternal Grandfather confirmed that Father “has some

issues . . . from time to time,” that he “sometimes can raise his voice,” and

                                       -4-
J-S38001-22

further conceded that conflicts occurred between Father and Paternal

Grandparents.    Id. at 26-27.    Paternal Grandmother likewise confirmed

conflicts with Father. See id. at 60-61. Paternal Grandmother admitted that

she sought custody, in part, to further Father’s relationship with Child. See

id. at 56, 80. The record also reveals that Mother obtained a final protection

from abuse (“PFA”) order against Father, a resident of Paternal Grandparents’

home, in May 2017 for a period of two years. That order was then extended

for a period of three years and expired in May 2022. See PFA Orders, No.

1607V7000, 5/18/17 and 7/9/19.

      Mother further testified that she opposes Paternal Grandparents’

petition because they have not “built [a supportive] relationship with [Child,

and t]hey’ve never built that relationship with me. They’ve done nothing but

harass and cause problems and make life more difficult for us.” N.T., 6/14/22,

at 113. Mother explained that Paternal Grandparents will send up to ten Zoom

invitations per day from various e-mail addresses to set up a virtual meeting

with Child, which impacts Mother’s ability to determine which meeting invites

to accept and attend. See id. at 114-15. Additionally, Mother described a

visit, during which Paternal Grandparents were to, by agreement, take Child

to an aquarium in New Jersey, but they instead took Child past the aquarium

toward New York, which caused Child to text Mother that she (Child) was

afraid of being taken to New York.    See id. at 102-03. That day, Mother

attempted to calm Child, though she (Mother) felt “terrible,” and as if she

                                     -5-
J-S38001-22

“can’t keep [Child] safe.”      Id. at 104.    Mother further stated that Child

sometimes returns from visits with Paternal Grandparents “very, very

hungry,” and complaining that she “is never fed lunch during these extended

visits.” Id. at 107.

         During the hearing, and in the presence of the parties’ counsel, the trial

court interviewed Child in camera.          See id. at 140.       The court then

summarized the interview, as well as its findings from that interview, on the

record at the hearing. The court explained that it found Child mature and

well-reasoned. Id. at 166. The court stated that Child explained that she

does not want to see Paternal Grandparents and she is afraid they will take

her back to New York without Mother knowing. See id. at 142, 143. The

court noted that Child does not enjoy phone calls with Paternal Grandparents

because there is a lot of yelling, and sometimes Father will participate on the

calls.    The court explained, “there’s a lot of yelling.    [Father’s] yelling at

[Paternal Grandparents, they yell back at him, and all he wants to talk about

is [Mother]. Sometimes [Child will] yell at them to stop, and sometimes she’ll

hang up.”      Id. at 144.     However, Child “likes going to brunch with her

grandparents.” Id.

                                        -6-
J-S38001-22

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court awarded Mother sole

legal and physical custody of Child.7            The court permitted Paternal

Grandparents to visit with Child “as they and Mother may arrange and agree.”

See id. at 171-71; see also Order, 6/14/22. Paternal Grandparents timely

appealed, and both the trial court and Paternal Grandparents complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Paternal Grandparents raise the following issue for our review:

             Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and/or abuse its discretion by
       awarding [Mother] sole legal custody and sole physical custody of
       [Child], and by only allowing visitation by [Paternal
       Grandparents], as [Mother] may arrange and agree?

Paternal Grandparents’ Brief at 5.8

____________________________________________

7 The trial court addressed on the record the best interest factors pursuant to
section 5328(a). See N.T., 6/14/22, at 165-69. While finding that section
5328(a)(1) favored Paternal Grandparents, the court found section
5328(a)(2), (4), (7), (9), (10), (12), and (15) favored Mother. The court
found all other section 5328(a) best interest factors to be either neutral or
inapplicable.

8 To the extent Paternal Grandparents challenge Mother’s legal custody, this
issue is waived for failure to raise it before the trial court. Paternal
Grandparents did not raise legal custody in their petition to modify, nor did
they raise legal custody at the June 14, 2022 hearing. See Petition to Modify,
7/12/19, at ¶ 7 (stating, “Petitioners believe it is in the best interest of the
child to modify the current custody order granting Paternal Grandparents
partial physical custody”) (emphasis added); see also N.T., 6/14/22, at 154-
55 (Paternal Grandparents’ counsel stating that Paternal Grandparents are
seeking increased physical custody); accord Trial Court Opinion, 8/10/22, at
14 (concluding that “[t]his issue is waived as it was not presented to the trial
court. At no stage in the proceedings did Paternal Grandparents ever seek
legal custody of D.J. At issue . . . was whether Paternal Grandparents should
be granted partial physical custody”). Accordingly, they have waived this
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-S38001-22

       Our standard and scope of review for custody actions is as follows:

             [O]ur 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.

Wilson v. Smyers, 284 A.3d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal citation

and quotations omitted); see also M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 18-19 (Pa.

Super. 2010) (en banc) (noting that an abuse of discretion is not merely an

error of judgment; rather, if the court’s judgment is manifestly unreasonable

as shown by the evidence of record, it has abused its discretion). Further, a

trial court’s discretion 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.” Ketterer v. Seifert,

902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

____________________________________________

issue for our review. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing for waiver of issues not
first raised in lower court); see also Interest of T.M., 239 A.3d 193, 201
(Pa. Super. 2020) (emphasizing the necessity of raising claims at the earliest
opportunity).

                                           -8-
J-S38001-22

       The Act provides that grandparents may seek partial physical custody.

See, e.g., 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325.9 “[T]he burden is on the grandparents ‘to

demonstrate that partial custody or visitation in their favor is in the child’s

best interest and will not interfere with the parent-child relationship.” D.R.L.

v. K.L.C., 216 A.3d 276, 279 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citation and

quotation omitted). The “paramount concern in custody cases, including those

in which grandparents are seeking rights, is the best interest[] of the child. A

determination of the best interest[] of the child is based on consideration of

all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical,

intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.”    Id. (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

       Section 5328 sets forth the factors that the trial court must consider in

awarding custody. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a); see also Wilson, 284 A.3d

at 516 n.5 (noting that section 5328 also applies to modifications of custody

awards). With regard to the best interest factors pursuant to section 5328(a),

we have stated that the trial court is required to consider all such factors. See

J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011). While the court must

give “weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the

child” pursuant to section 5328(a), we have acknowledged that the amount of

____________________________________________

9 Section 5325 grants grandparents standing to petition for partial physical
custody or supervised physical custody in certain circumstances. As discussed
further below, standing is presently not at issue.

                                           -9-
J-S38001-22

weight a court gives any one factor is almost entirely discretionary: “It is

within the trial court’s purview as the finder of fact to determine 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).

      Section 5328(c), which requires consideration of additional factors when

grandparents are parties, provides in relevant part:

            (1) In ordering partial physical custody or supervised
      physical custody to a party who has standing under section
      5325(1) or (2) (relating to standing for partial physical custody
      and supervised physical custody), the court shall consider the
      following:

                   (i) the amount of personal contact between the
            child and the party prior to the filing of the action;

                 (ii) whether the award interferes with any
            parent-child relationship; and

                  (iii) whether the award is in the best interest of
            the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

      All sixteen best interest factors set forth in section 5328(a), as well as

the three statutory custody factors pertaining to grandparents listed in section

5328(c)(1), are required to be considered by the trial court when

grandparents seek custody rights. See D.R.L., 216 A.3d at 280. However,

there is no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that

is required is that the court consider the enumerated factors and base its

decision thereon. See id. Lastly, while our Supreme Court has observed the

state’s interest in protecting beneficial grandparent-child relationships, the

                                      - 10 -
J-S38001-22

Court also recognized it “cannot conclude that such a benefit always accrues

in cases where grandparents force their way into grandchildren’s lives through

the courts, contrary to the decision of a fit parent.” See Hiller v. Fausey,

904 A.2d 875, 886 (Pa. 2006).

       In challenging the trial court’s award of custody, Paternal Grandparents

argue that the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of section

5328(a)(4), (5), (7), (8), and (13). Paternal Grandparents’ Brief at 10-12.

Paternal Grandparents’ argument across these factors hinges on the same

concern, namely that the trial court’s custody order, which provides Mother

the ultimate discretion with respect to visitation, will allow Mother to isolate

Child from them and result in the termination of Child’s beneficial relationship

with them and the paternal family. Id.

       At the conclusion of the hearing on Paternal Grandparents’ petition to

modify, the trial court explained that, while the first factor under section

5328(a) favors Paternal Grandparents because they are the parties more likely

to permit contact between Child and the other party, factors two, four, seven,

nine, ten, twelve, and fifteen favor Mother. See N.T., 6/14/22, at 165-69.

The court concluded the remaining factors are neutral or do not apply.10 Id.

____________________________________________

10 The court also reviewed the additional factors relevant to grandparents
pursuant to section 5328(c). See N.T., 6/14/22, at 169-70. However,
Paternal Grandparents raise no arguments relating to section 5328(c).

                                          - 11 -
J-S38001-22

Consistent with its determination on the record at the custody hearing, in its

Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court summed up its reasoning as follows:

              Dissatisfied with their coming to Philadelphia to see [Child],
       Paternal Grandparents want [Child] to travel to their home one
       weekend a month during the school year and one week a month
       during the summer. The [c]ourt determined that this situation
       would be contrary to [Child]’s best interests given [Child]’s
       opposition to being in Paternal Grandparents’ frequent presence
       whether in Philadelphia or New York, the danger posed by Father’s
       living in Paternal Grandparents’ household and his being there
       during [Child]’s proposed visits, and the excessive travel for
       [Child]. The situation has devolved to one in which Paternal
       Grandparents are attempting to force their way into [Child]’s life
       through this court, contrary to the wishes of Mother who is a fit
       parent. Paternal Grandparents do not provide support to further
       [Child]’s emotional well-being. Further, by requesting visits with
       [Child] in their and Father’s home, Paternal Grandparents may be
       construed as acting as proxies for Father who has no custodial
       rights at all.

             Since Paternal Grandparents no longer wish to come to
       Philadelphia and since it is not in [Child]’s best interest to go to
       their home in New York, the [c]ourt properly determined that
       Mother should have sole physical custody and that Paternal
       Grandparents can visit with [Child] as they and Mother agree. The
       continued litigation is putting a great strain on [Child]’s emotional
       and mental wellbeing.         Throughout this litigation, Paternal
       Grandparents have put their own convenience and interest above
       that of [Child]. As this [c]ourt is mandated by statute and
       decisional law to consider the best interest[s] of [Child] first and
       foremost, it determined that Mother proved . . . that she is entitled
       to sole physical custody of [Child].

Trial Court Opinion, 8/10/22, at 19.11

____________________________________________

11 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.5(a)(4) provides that “[i]n a
third-party plaintiff custody action in which standing has not been resolved by
preliminary objection, the court shall address the third-party plaintiff’s
standing and include its standing decision in a written opinion or order.”
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 12 -
J-S38001-22

       Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

The trial court concluded that Paternal Grandparents’ involvement, and

personal contact with Child, stemmed largely from their role as supervisors

during Father’s custodial periods. The trial court heard evidence that Father—

who had no physical or legal custody at the time and who lives in Paternal

Grandparents’ home—had a history of violence and mental illness and that

Paternal Grandparents sought custody in part to facilitate Father’s relationship

with Child. See N.T., 6/14/22, at 6-7, 26-27, 100-01, 110-11, 117-22, 133-

____________________________________________

Pa.R.C.P. 1915.5(a)(4) (emphasis added). Rule 1915.5(a)(3) more generally
provides that “[t]he court may raise standing sua sponte.” Pa.R.Civ.P.
1915.5(a)(3). We encourage trial courts to address standing, generally, and
especially in cases where third-parties petition for custody.

That said, the trial court declined to engage in a standing analysis in its order
deciding this action, but instead sua sponte addressed Paternal Grandparents’
standing in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. While the court’s standing analysis was
well-reasoned, it occurred after Paternal Grandparents filed their notice of
appeal, thereby divesting that court of jurisdiction. Therefore, it was improper
for the trial court to address standing after the fact. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a)
(providing that, “[e]xcept as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an
appeal is taken . . . the trial court or other government unit may no longer
proceed further in the matter”).

We further note that, while Mother unsuccessfully opposed Paternal
Grandparents’ standing in 2018, she failed thereafter to move for dismissal
based on Paternal Grandparents’ lack of standing, or renew her objection to
Paternal Grandparents’ standing, prior to, or at the 2022 hearing. As noted
above, the trial court’s order, presently before this Court, did not address
standing; and this Court may not address standing sua sponte. See In re
Adoption of Z.S.H.G., 34 A.3d 1283, 1288-89 (Pa. Super. 2011) (clarifying
that standing is not intertwined with subject matter jurisdiction and therefore,
this Court may not raise standing sua sponte). We accordingly decline to
review this issue.

                                          - 13 -
J-S38001-22

35; see also id. at 137, Ex. G-2; Protection From Abuse Orders, No.

1607V7000, 5/18/17 and 7/9/19. The court further found that the prior award

of custody to Paternal Grandparents, and “constant court involvement,” was

causing Mother and Child emotional turmoil, thereby detrimentally affecting

their relationship. Moreover, the court interviewed Child, in camera, in the

presence of the parties’ counsel.     See N.T., 6/14/22, at 140 (trial court

synopsizing Child’s position).    The court found Child mature and well-

reasoned. See id. at 166. Child opposed spending more time with Paternal

Grandparents. See id. at 142-44. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion

in the trial court’s determination that Paternal Grandparents failed to meet

their burden of showing that an award to them of partial physical custody of

Child served Child’s best interest, and, instead that awarding Mother sole legal

and physical custody of Child was in Child’s best interest. See Hiller, 904

A.2d at 886 (noting that, while child-grandparent relationships may be

beneficial, that benefit does not always accrue “where grandparents force their

way into grandchildren’s lives through the courts, contrary to the decision of

a fit parent”).

      Order affirmed.

                                     - 14 -
J-S38001-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/27/2023

                          - 15 -