Court Opinion

ID: 3217125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-25 00:16:13.784073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:23.830362
License: Public Domain

J-A11026-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

P.M.                                                IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                          PENNSYLVANIA
                            Appellee

                       v.

L.B.M.

                            Appellant                    No. 3421 EDA 2015

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2015
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
                   Domestic Relations at No(s): 2000-014826

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.:                                   FILED June 24, 2016

        Appellant, L.B.M. (Mother), appeals from the November 10, 20151

order granting the petition for modification of the existing custody order and

the petition for relocation filed by P.M. (Father), with respect to the parties’

son, D.M., born in January 1999. After careful review, we affirm.

        The trial court set forth the extensive procedural and factual history of

this case in its November 10, 2015 order, which the testimonial and

documentary evidence supports.            As such, we adopt it herein.   See Trial

Court Order, 11/10/15, at 1-22.

____________________________________________

*
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
  The trial court’s order is dated November 9, 2015, but was filed on
November 10, 2015.
J-A11026-16

       Relevant to this appeal, Father filed the respective petitions on April

14, 2015, in which he requested legal and primary physical custody of D.M.,

then age sixteen, and a sophomore in high school. D.M. resided all of his life

with Mother in Villanova, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Father resided in

the State of California “on and off since 1999.” N.T., 8/26/15, at 62. At the

time of the subject proceedings, he resided in Bonita, California, a suburb of

San Diego, with his wife and her son.

       The existing custody order, dated November 8, 2013, granted the

parties shared legal custody.         The order granted Mother primary physical

custody, and Father partial physical custody for ten days following the end of

the school year, and for three consecutive weeks prior to the beginning of

the school year. The order also set forth Father’s periods of partial physical

custody during holidays.2

       In his petition, Father alleged that D.M. “[wa]s being suspended and

presumably terminated from the Radnor School District for the balance of his

academic career,” as the result of an incident in February or March of 2015,

when D.M. gained unauthorized access to and harmed the Radnor School

District’s computer network.          Petition for Relocation, 4/14/15, at ¶ 11;

Petition for Modification, 4/14/15, at ¶ 6; Trial Court Order, 11/10/15, at 8,

n 7. In addition, Father alleged that D.M. interfered with the Radnor High
____________________________________________

2
  The Honorable Barry C. Dozor, who presided over the subject proceedings,
issued the November 8, 2013 custody order following an evidentiary trial.

                                           -2-
J-A11026-16

School computers in March 2014, resulting in the computers “being

confiscated by the Radnor Police[.]” Petition for Modification, 4/14/15, at ¶

5(b).    Father further alleged, “Mother cannot control [D.M.,] and [D.M.] is

potentially very dangerous with his enhanced computer skills and knowledge

in an unsupervised environment[.]” Id. at ¶ 8.

        A trial occurred on Father’s petitions on August 26, 2015, and

September 11, 2015, during which Father testified on his own behalf.       In

addition, Father presented the testimony of his wife, G.M., and his sons from

his first marriage, Je.M., then age 29, and Ju.M., then age 31.3

        Mother testified on her own behalf, and presented the testimony of

Michael Wilson, the Director of Government Relations and Outreach at the

Commonwealth Connections Academy, a cyber school where she enrolled

D.M. in March 2015.         Further, Mother presented the testimony of George

Torrey, whom she employed in January 2014 to tutor D.M. in math. In lieu

of testimony, Mother introduced into evidence letters from H.C., the mother

of a friend of D.M., and C.R. and S.G., family friends.

        The trial court interviewed D.M. in camera in the presence of counsel.

D.M. testified that he wanted to continue living with Mother.       See N.T.,

9/11/15, at 155.        Further, the trial court introduced into evidence the

____________________________________________

3
  Father has four adult sons from his first marriage.      Trial Court Order,
11/10/15, at 6, ¶ 10.

                                           -3-
J-A11026-16

psychological evaluation of D.M. performed by V. Richard Roeder, Ph.D., in

June 2015.

       On November 10, 2015, the trial court granted the parties joint legal

custody,4 Father primary physical custody to begin no later than November

28, 2015, and Mother partial physical custody for seven weeks during the

summer. Further, the trial court ordered D.M. to attend a minimum of five

individual counseling and therapy sessions to assist him in his “relocation to

California, his self-esteem, or other personal issues.”          Trial Court Order,

11/10/15, at 44.

       On November 12, 2015, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a

concise    statement     of   errors    complained   of   on   appeal   pursuant   to

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court filed

a Rule 1925(a) opinion on December 3, 2015.

       On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review.

              1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused
              its discretion in failing to consider the possible harm
              to [D.M.] in uprooting him from the care pattern he
              has known from a young age[?]

____________________________________________

4
  We observe that the Child Custody Act (“Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340,
does not use the term “joint legal custody.” See generally 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5322(a). Here, we refer to the court’s legal custody award as “shared
legal custody.” Id.

                                           -4-
J-A11026-16

            2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused
            its discretion in disregarding [D.M.]’s preference to
            remain in [] Pennsylvania with his mother[?]

            3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused
            its discretion in analyzing the factors enumerated in
            [23] Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) and § 5337(h)(1)-(10) as
            the [trial] court’s analysis, findings of fact and
            conclusions of law are not supported by the
            record[?]

Mother’s Brief at 9.

      Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to

weigh the benefits to D.M. of relocating to California against “the possible

harm [he] would suffer by uprooting him from the care pattern he has

known from a young age”; (2) disregarding D.M.’s preference to remain in

Pennsylvania; and (3) failing to weigh the statutory best interest factors, 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(3) and (10), and the statutory relocation factors, 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(1), (2), and (7), in favor of Mother. Id. at 15.

      Our scope and standard of review in custody matters is 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

                                     -5-
J-A11026-16

            unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of
            the trial court.

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted)

(emphasis added).

      Further, we have stated the following.

            [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).

      Pursuant to the Act, in considering modification of an existing custody

order, “a court may modify a custody order to serve the best interest of the

child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). “The best-interests standard, decided on a

case-by-case basis, considers all 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), quoting Arnold v.

Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004).        Section 5328(a) provides

the following enumerated list of factors a trial court must consider.

            § 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

                                     -6-
J-A11026-16

          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.

                (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.

                                   -7-
J-A11026-16

                  (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).

      In the instant case, as neither Father nor Mother was seeking to

relocate, but only D.M. would be moving a significant distance if Father’s

petition for modification was granted, this circumstance “does not per se

trigger [S]ection 5337 of the … Act.” D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467, 477

(Pa. Super. 2014).   Nevertheless, we have held, “[t]rial courts should still

consider the relevant factors of [S]ection 5337(h) in their [S]ection 5328(a)

best interest analysis.” Id. at 477-478. We have explained, “several of the

relevant factors of [S]ection 5337(h) are encompassed, directly or implicitly,

                                     -8-
J-A11026-16

by the custody factors listed in [S]ection 5328(a). Any relevant [S]ection

5337(h) factor that is not expressly encompassed in [S]ection 5328(a)

should be considered by the trial court under the catchall provision of

[S]ection 5328(a)(16).” Id. at 478. The Section 5337(h) relocation factors

are as follows.

            § 5337. Relocation

            (h) Relocation factors.--In determining whether to
            grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider
            the following factors, giving weighted consideration
            to those factors which affect the safety of the child:

                  (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.

                                     -9-
J-A11026-16

                  (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.

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

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).

      In its November 10, 2015 order, the trial court recited and reviewed all

of the Section 5328(a) best interest factors and all of the Section 5337(h)

relocation factors. See Trial Court Order, 11/10/15, at 23-39. In its Rule

1925(a) opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’s asserted errors.

      With respect to her assertion that the court failed to consider the

possible harm to D.M. by “uprooting him from the care pattern he has

known from a young age,” the court disagreed and explained in part as

follows.

            Under this care pattern [D.M.] has repeatedly
            engaged in a course of conduct that has led to
            multiple disciplinary actions from his schools, and
            ultimately led to his removal from Radnor School

                                    - 10 -
J-A11026-16

             District as well as the filing of criminal charges
             against him.     This care pattern by Mother also
             included the exclusion of Father from all major life
             decisions and the alienation of Father and Father’s
             family from [D.M.].     Mother has also repeatedly
             exercised poor judgment. Mother has consistently
             ignored the requirements of [shared] legal custody
             by refusing to seek legally required [] approval [from
             Father] before making decisions for [D.M.]. Mother
             also, by her own admission, provided [D.M.] with
             ‘every single document’ generated in connection with
             this custody case….

             The estrangement of [D.M.] from Father, as a direct
             result of Mother’s actions, has undoubtedly harmed
             [D.M.], Father and [D.M.]’s relationship, and their
             ability to communicate.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/3/15, at 30. With respect to the benefits to D.M. in

relocating to live with Father, the trial court found as follows.

             These benefits are numerous and significant, and
             include Father’s expertise in the field of computer
             technology and his ability to mentor [D.M.] about
             computer technology, the chance to live and learn in
             California which is renowned for its central role in the
             world of technology, [D.M.’s] opportunity to attend a
             high school that would provide him with social
             interaction, with both peers and teachers, as well as
             more contact with members of Father’s family[.]

Id. at 29.

      The trial court addressed D.M.’s preference to remain in Pennsylvania

with Mother and found, “that while [D.M.] would prefer to remain in

Pennsylvania with Mother[,] it is not in his best interests to do so. [D.M.]’s

best interests are better served by living in California with Father than to

continue living in Pennsylvania with Mother.            Th[e trial c]ourt also

                                      - 11 -
J-A11026-16

determined that [D.M.]’s pattern of misconduct, and even criminal activity,

illustrated that his maturity, judgment, and decision-making skills are

questionable.”   Id. at 24.   The trial court concluded that D.M. moving to

California with Father was in D.M.’s best interests.

             [T]h[e trial c]ourt determined that Mother was
             unable to provide competent guidance in the area of
             computers and ethics regarding computer systems
             which th[e trial c]ourt determines is necessary. …
             Th[e trial c]ourt notes that Mother herself continued
             to testify that she was not technologically savvy and
             the record is well developed that Father is more than
             competent in this area to assist [D.M.]. Father …
             due to his background in the field of computer
             technology, is both willing and able to provide [D.M.]
             with continuing guidance, education, and supervision
             about not only computer technology but also the
             responsibilities that come along w[ith] using
             technology.     Father is also uniquely capable of
             helping [D.M.] because he has had custody of the
             four older boys who have had similar issues,
             including an addiction to computers/gaming. All of
             the older boys are now flourishing and enjoy a close
             relationship with their Father and Father’s family
             despite the circumstances that they experienced.

Id. at 26.

      Finally, with respect to Mother’s assertion that the trial court failed to

properly weigh the Section 5328(a) best interest factors and the Section

5337(h) relocation factors, the trial court disagreed.    Specifically, the trial

court emphasized its thorough consideration of all of the requisite statutory

factors in light of the testimonial and documentary evidence, as well as its

credibility and weight of the evidence findings against Mother, which fall

within the sole province of the trial court. See A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818,

                                     - 12 -
J-A11026-16

820 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted) (stating, in part, that “on issues of

credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial

[court.] … The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court

places on evidence”).

      Upon review, we conclude that the trial court carefully and thoroughly

considered the best interests of D.M. in fashioning its custody award. The

record overwhelmingly supports the trial court’s decision, based in large

part, on finding that D.M. has a “history of misconduct with technology while

attending various schools in Pennsylvania. Th[e trial c]ourt heard testimony

of four   (4) separate     incidents during which    [D.M.]   misused school

technology.   All of these incidents led to punishment for [D.M.], and

ultimately led to, contributed to, and were cause for his withdrawal from

Radnor School District.”   Trial Court Opinion, 12/3/15, at 9.    As such, we

discern no abuse of discretion.

      Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the entirety of the trial court

opinions comprehensively expound on Mother’s issues.          Accordingly, we

adopt and incorporate the trial court’s November 10, 2015 order and

December 3, 2015 opinion with this memorandum in affirming the November

10, 2015 custody order.

      Order affirmed.

                                    - 13 -
J-A11026-16

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/24/2016

                          - 14 -
                                                                                      Circulated 06/16/2016 03:02 PM

            IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                  CIVIL ACTION - LAW

P,M,
               Plaintiff
       v.                                           No.: 2000-014826

               Defendant
                                                    IN CUSTODY

Francis Urso, Esquire for Plaintiff
Jeanne Bakker, Esquire for Defendant

                                        FINAL CUSTODY QRDER
                                           rif
       AND NOW, to wit, this          7          day of November 2015, upon consideration of the

Petition to Modify Custody and Petition for Relocation both flied by Father onAprll 14, 2015,

and the Trial held   on August   26, 2015 and September 11, 2015, it Is hereby ORDERED and

DECREED as follows:

 A. Procedural History

   1. Plalntlff/Father, P, M,             , hereinafter "Father," has remarried and resides with
      his wife and wife's child at       Rawhide Court, Bonita, CA, the suburbs of San Diego,
      California.

   2, Defendant/Mother, L B. M.                          ., hereinafter "Mother," remains slngle,
      resides with the parties' son D. M.              , at     . Chandler Lane, Vlllanova, PA
      19085.

   3. The parties' only child is D,,/'fl,.     , presently 16 years of age, and was born on
      January 12, 1999. D:,N\ ls currently In the 11th grade and Is currently enro'led In the
      cyber school, the Commonwealth Connections Academy. ·

   4. The parties have had several previous custody orders In this case, all of which have
      always provided each party with Joint Legal Custody. Additlonally, this Court notes that
      Mother has always had primary custody and Father has always had partial physical
      custody which consisted of time during the school year and a significant portion of time

                                           Page 1 of 44
             during the summer months as for most of Minor Child's life Father has lived In the State
             of California.

         5. The first Temporary Custody Order was Issued on December 4, 2002, signed by The
            Honorable Judge Fitzpatrick, and provided Mother and Father Joint Legal Custody,
            Mother Primary Physical Custody, and Father Partial Physical Custody. Additionally,
            Father was given eight (8) weeks of custody of Minor Chlld during the summer and one
            (1) week of custody of Minor Child during Spring Break.

        6. On September 4, 2012 a Petition to Modify Existing Custody Order was filed.'

        7. The parties were before the Master and on December 4, 2012 a Temporary Custody
           Order was signed by The Honorable Judge Fitzpatrick. The Temporary Custody Order
           provlded Mother and Father Joint Legal Custody, Mother Prlmarv Physical Custody, and
           Father Partial Physical Custody. Additionally, the Temporary Custody Order stated that
           the December 4, 2002 Temporary Custody Order remained In full force and effect.

        8. This Court notes that Mother flied an immediate Motion to Modify this Temporary
           Custody Order seel- you know in we started this tl1ing in September - thls game
                                   M

             server in like September or November and in January we started
             getting - you know, we had to klck people off our game server
             because they were just causing problems. They were, you know,
                                       Page 14 of 31
              being mean to people I guess. And they got a little disgruntled at
             being kicked off so they started basically just taking down our
             server with, you know, Internet - they were llke flooding our
             internet basically.
             So I was trying to make like protection with my computer. I was
             trying to block out these attacks so they wouldn't affect me
             because I was losing players because, you know, the server would
             be down at times.

             So I was doing these attacks to myself, so I could, you know,
             emulate the same thing and try to make rules in my router to block
             them. And the way it basically works Is I had bought a server In the
             Cloud that has a much higher bandwlth than what I have at home.
             So it will basically send tons of data to my computer at home and
             that would - you know, that would be what they were dolng. It's
             called load testing.

             So I was at school when I was throwing these attacks. I was using
             a VPN so the dedicated server In the Cloud would think rm at
              home doing these attacks so they were going to my home Instead
             of the school. And I couldn't do it after school because there were
             people on at that time. You know, I wouldn't want to just kick
             people off. During school hours there's barely anyone on them. And
             I - there - I think there Is either a misconfiguration what I was
             using in the IPad or It was just the app was crashing and it would
             hit the school.
             So if I was correctly using my VPN my home computer would look
             like it was llke telling the server to attack it. And if it was
             mlscontlqured, like it was w!th mine, it would look like it was
             coming from the school. The school was telling the dedicated
             server in the Cloud to attack it. .. From the school I created a path to
             my computer.

[N.T., September 11, 2015, pg. 145-149].

      Minor Child submitted a statement to the Radnor Township Police Department

regarding the 2015 Incident on March 13, 2015. The statement reads,

            At school, I shared Open VPN Software with other students on the
            iPads which allowed them to circumvent the filter. However, I
            personally used this for "Remote Desktop11 and being able to
            remotely manage game servers. I did not attack the school In any
                                      Page 15 of 31
                way, shape, or form. All technology used by me was only supposed
                to be used for m game servers that I maintain and support outside
                of the school. I harbor no malicious Intent for interfering with
                Radnor High School.

 See Plaintiff's Exhibit, P-9.

        Minor Child stated \\They [the school district and the police} took It too seriously,"

when asked about the dlsdpllnarv Incident that led to his removal from Radnor High

School. See Court's Exhibit, C-1, page 4. Additionally Dr. Roeder's evaluation reports

Minor Chlld, "rnlnlmlzed past and present incidents," as well as \'minimized his

culpabillty for the School District Incident this year", See Court's Exhibit, C-1, page 4.

        This Court notes that in his testimony Minor Child states that he was tiying to

test his system while in the interviews of Minor Child attached to the Affidavit of

Probable Cause, Minor Child '\continually stated that he did not "intentlonally" cause the

attacks however could not rationally explain how the attacks are taking place. Minor

Child continued stating he didn't do anything wrong and gave a written statement."

Minor Child informed this Court that he simply wanted to test how the hack works vs.

wanting to test It at school vs. wanting to test it on his own systems, Inconsistent all

around. See Plaintiff's Exhibit, PH9. Dr. Roeder stated that overall Minor Child

"rnlnlmlzed past and present Incidents." Additionally the report states that Minor Child,

"Indicated that his behavior In elementary school and middle school were "pranks," and

that his violations of the school computer system this year were "mlstakes," He seemed

to have little remorse, but did express regret that he now could not go on school

property for efterschool activities or any other reason." See Court's Exhibit, Cm 1, pages

                                        Page 16 of 31
        Dr. Roeder's report also states that when asked about the 2015 Incident Minor

 Child explained that he, "did not realize that he would "get expelled from school" for his

actions." See Court's Exhibit, CM1, page 5. Despite all the evidence and testimony to the

contrary, Mother also stated, regarding Minor Child's multiple dlsclpllnary Incidents and

his use of computers, "I don't think he hacked." [N.T., September 11, 2015, pg. 19].

       Father testified that he was not aware of the 2015 incident and the ensuing

punishment until Mother frantically called him to inform Father that Minor Child has

been placed on a ten (10) day suspension from school. Father at this point was

proceeding without l54 A.3d 950, 953 (Pa.Super.2012). In

reviewing a Trial court's Final Custody order the Appellate Court "cannot make

Independent factual determinations, we must accept the findings of the trial court that

are supported by the evidence." Id Therefore, an Appellate Court will "defer to the trial

judge regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence." Id A Trial Court's Final

Order may be rejected by the Appellate Court, "but only if they involve an error of law

or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings." Id See also J.R.M. v• .J.E.A.1 33

A.3d 647 (Pa.Super.2011); Hanson v,, Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129 (Pa.Super.2005);

Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa.Super.2005). The Appellate Courts defer to

a Trial Court on Issues of credibility and weight of the evidence and testimony because
                                        Page 22 of 31
 lt ls the Trial Court Judge who has had the opportunltv to observe the proceedings and

 demeanor of the witnesses. R,M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G,, 986 A.2d 1234, 1237

 (Pa.Super.2009). '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 thorouph, and we are unable to find any abuse of

discretion. Id. The test Is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court's

conclusions." Ketterer v. Seffertr 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super.2006); W.C.F. v.

M.G., 2015 Pa. Super. 102, 115 A.3d 323, 327 (2015).

       In Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 322, 744A.2d 745,753 (2000),

the Pennsylvanla Supreme Court defined "abuse of discretion" as follows:

          The term 'discretion' Imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom,
          and skill so as to reach as dispassionate conclusion, with the
          framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of
          giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be exercised
          on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice, personal
          motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused when
          the course pursued represents not merely an error of judgment,
          but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the
          law Is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a
          result of partiality, prejudice, blas or Ill will.

Widme9 560 Pa. at 322, 744 A.2d at 753 (quoting Coker v. S.M,, Flinger Co.I' Inc.,

533 Pa. 441, 447, 625 A.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1993}); Custer v.. Cochran, 933 A.2d

1050, 1053-54 (Pa.Super.2007)(en bane); Mescanti v. Mescanti, 2008 Pa. Super. 201,

956 A.2d 10171 1019 (2008).

                                       Page 23 of 31
        This Court has clearly, and thoroughly, weighed all of the necessary factors ln

 both 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5328 and 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5337 to determine which

 party should have Primary Cust_ody of Minor Child as well as whether Minor Child should

 relocate to California. This Court observed the demeanor of the witnesses and weighed

the credibility of their testimony and evidence. There was no abuse of discretion and

the Appellate Court should affirm the Trial Court's Final Custody Order.

      II.    THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND/OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
             REGARDING THE CHILD'S PREFERENCE TO REMAIN IN
             PENNSYLVANIA WITH HIS MOTHER.

        Appellant argues that this Court erred by disregarding Minor Child's preference to

remain in Pennsylvania with Mother lnstead of relocating to California to llve with

Father. This Court did not.disregard Minor Chlld's preference to remain with Mother in

Pennsylvania. This Court In fact acknowledged and discussed Minor Child's preference in

lts discussion of both 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5328(a)(7) and Section 5337{h)(4). This

Court recognized that while Minor Child would prefer to remain In Pennsylvania with

Mother it is not in his best interests to do so. Minor Child's best Interests are better

served by living In Callfornla with Father than to continue living In Pennsylvania with

Mother, This Court also determined that Minor Child's pattern of misconduct, and even

criminal activity, Illustrated that his maturity, judgment, and decision-making skills are

questionable.

       "While the express wishes of a child Jn a custody action are not controlHng, they

constitute an Important factor that must be considered carefully by the trial court when

determining the child's best Interest/I McMi!len v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d
                                       Page 24 of 31
 845 (1992); Graham v. Graham, 2002 Pa. Super. 64, ~ 20, 794 A.2d 912, 918 (2002).

 In reviewing the preference of a child In a custody case, the child's preference must be

 based on good reasons. E.A,l~1 443 Pa.Super. at 590, 662 A.2d at 1117-18. This

 preference must also be based on the child's maturity and intelligence. However, the

weight to be given the child's preference can best be determined by the judge before

whom the child appears. Cardamone, 442 Pa.Super. at 278, 659 A.2d at 583; Swope

 v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587, 592, 689 A.2d 264, 266 (1997).

       If a Court is not persuaded by the chlld's preference because It would not be in

the child's best interests, the child's preference is simply not controlling. Elll11gsen v.

Magsamen, 337 Pa.Super. 14, 486 A.2d 456 (1984), Altus-Baumhor v. Baumhor,

407 Pa. Super. 276., 281, 595 A.2d 11471 1150 (1991).

       Minor Child's preference to stay in Pennsylvania with Mother Is not in hls best

Interests for numerous reasons and therefore the Court was not controlled by the

preference of Minor Cl1lld. Minor Child's frequent discipline at school ls of great cause

for concern. Minor Child's repeated disciplinary Incidents culminated ln Minor Child

being removed from Radnor High School and banned from re-enrolllng In the school or

entering the premises for the foreseeable future. Minor Child has obviously not been

able to change hls patterns of behavior and avoid misusing computer equipment while

under Mother's care. Minor Child has also faced criminal charges for hls actions with

school-owned computer equipment while in the care of Mother.

Due to his disciplinary issues Minor Child is unable to attend a physical school In

Pennsylvania and has been attending an onllne school. Minor Child testified that he
                                       Page 25 of 31
 misses the ability to Interact with other students and teachers and attend school and

 extracurricular functions. Mother testlfied that she acts as a "!earning coach" for Minor

 Child's onllne schooling and her duties Include signing off on Minor Childs attendance

 and speaking with his teachers. Mother additionally stated that she currently has "total

control" of Minor Child's schooling. [N.T., August 26 2015, p. 309]. Which is disturbing

to this Court as the prior Incidents of computer hacking all occurred under the direct ·

supervision of Mother .

       In rendering the issue of custody and relocatlon, this Court determined that

Mother was unable to provide competent guidance In the area of computers and ethics

regarding computers systems which this Court determines Is necessary. This Court

determines that Mother, herself, believed she needed outside help as she hired Minor

Child a "mentor" in the area of computer technology. This Court notes that Mother

herself continued to testify that she was not technologically savvy and the record Is well

developed that Father Is more than competent in this area to assist Minor Child. Father

however, due to his background In the field of computer technoloqy, Is both willing and

able to provide Minor Child with continuing guidance, educatlon, and supervision about

not only computer technology but also the responsibilities that come al.ong w/ using

technology. Father ls also uniquely capable of helping Minor Child because he has had

custody of the four older boys who have had similar tssues, Including an addlctlon to

computers/gaming. All of the older boys are now flourishing and enjoy a close

relationship with their Father and Father's family despite the circumstances that they

experienced.
                                       Page 26 of 3:t
        Mother's actions have also been directly contrary to Ml nor Child's best Interests.

 Mother testified that she has repeatedly scheduled camps and actlvitles during Father's

scheduled summer visit.ation with Minor Child. Mother has purposefully kept Father from

enjoying the full amount of vlsltatlon with Minor Child provided by past custody orders

for years. Mother has conslstently thwarted the relationship between Father and Minor

Child by not allowing Father to have his full visltatlon with Minor Child, as well as

providing Minor Child with Court Documents that have undoubtedly negatively shaped

and Influenced the way ln which Minor Child views Father. This Court notes that Minor

Child Informed the Court that his views about Father had changed based upon Mother's

egregious actions of providing Minor Child with the Court documents. Minor Child stated

that he was upset by some of the thlngs that he read In the court documents provided

to him by Mother. Whe~ asked what specifically had upset Minor Child he stated, "Well,

It was actually something In the psychological evaluation that Isaw. You know, my dad

describing me in an unflalterlng way to the psychologist." [N.T., September 11, 2015,

pg. 139].

       Mother testified that she purposefully scheduled Minor Child's summer activities

during Father's custodial periods and stated that she did so because she felt Father was

unable to care for Minor Child due to his work schedule. This Court notes that while

Mother has repeatedly questioned Father's overall ability to care for Minor Child she has

never filed any petition to remove him from having joint legal custody, nor Is this Court

aware of any ongoing or past Children and Youth Investigations regarding Father and

Minor Child.
                                       Page 27 of 31
        Therefore, this Court did not err In determining that Minor Child's preference was

 not ln his best Interests.

    XII.   .THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR AND/OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
            BY FAILING TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE HARM TO THE CHILD IN
            UPROOTING HIM FROM THE CARE PAITERN HE HAS KNOWN FROM
           A YOUNG AGE.

        Appellant's next allegation of error by thls Court is that this Court erred by not

 considering the possible harm to Minor Child that could occur as a result of his

 relocation to California. This Court notes that analyzing, "the possible harm to the chlld

ln uprooting hlm from the care pattern he has known from a young agen is not one of

the factors that a court must analyze when deciding the relocation of a child or the

prlmary custody of a child under 23 Pa.C.S.A, Section 5337 or 23 Pa.C.S.A.

Section 5328, However this Court did consider the possible harm to Minor Child that

could stem from uprooting him from the care pattern he has known from a young age.

This consideration was paramount in several factors including, but not limited to, this

Court's analysis of whether, "relocation will enhance the general quaHty of life or the

ch/kl, lncluding, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educat1onal

opportunity." Section 5337(h)(7), "the nature, quality, extent of involvement and

duration of the chrld's relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the

non-relocatlnq party, sibllngs and other significant persons in the child's life." 23

Pa.c.s.A. Section 5337(h)(1), "each party's avallability to care for the child or abillty

to make appropriate chlld-care arrangements." 23 Pa.c.s.A. Section 5328(a) (12),

"which party Is more likely to attend to the physical, emotional, developmental,

                                       Page 28 of 31
 educational and special needs of the chlld." 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5328(a) (10),

"Which party ls more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing

relationship with the chHd adequate for the chlld's emotional needs." 23 Pa.c.s.A.

Section 5328(a) (9), "The need for stabilfty and continuity In the child's education,

family life and community life," must be evaluated. 23 Pa.C.S.A, Section 5328(a)

(4), and "the parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.'' 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) (3). This Court analyzed all of these factors and determined that

they weighed In favor of Father having Primary Physical Custody and Minor Child

relocating to Caltfornta to live with Father.

       This Court also considered the benefits that Minor Child will enjoy from his

relocation to California to llve with Father. These benefits are numerous and significant,

and Include Father's expertise in the field of computer technology and his ability to

mentor Minor Chlld about computer technology, the chance to live and learn in

California which is renowned for Its central role In the world of technology, Minor Child's

opportunity to attend a high school that would provide him with social lnteractlon, with

both peers and teachers, as well as more contact with members of Father's family.

Minor Chlld will also be able to continue his ardent, fervent, passionate participation in

both Boy Scouts and Ultimate Frisbee upon hls move to live with Father as both of

these activities have organizations based in Callfornia. Father's steadfastly and credibly

testified that Minor Child would have unfettered access with his only sister. This Court

found that the number of possible benefits overwhelming exceeded any possible

repercussions Minor Child could experience from this move.
                                        Page 29 of 31
        Furthermore, this Court considered whether Minor Chlld's bestlnterests would be

 served If he were allowed to remain in the same earn pattern he has known from a

young age. Under this care pattern Minor Child has repeatedly engaged In a course of

conduct that has led to multiple disciplinary actions from his schools, and ultimately led

to his removal from Radnor School District as well as the filing of criminal charges

against him. This care pattern by Mother also Included the exclusion of Father from all

major life decisions and the allenatlon of Father and Father's family from Minor Child.

Mother has also repeatedly exercised poor judgment. Mother has consistently Ignored

the requirements of joint legal custody by refusing to seek legally required Father's

approval before making decisions for Minor Child. Mother also, by her own admission,

provided Minor Child with "every slngle document" generated In connection with this

custody case, Including all court documents, pleadings, communications and letters

among the lawyers and courts, all custody orders, and psychological reports prepared

for trial, pre-trial statements, and Father's petitions.

       The estrangement of Minor Child from Father, as a direct result of Mother's

actions, has undoubtedly harmed Minor Child, Father and Minor Child's relationship, and

their abllity to communicate.

       The record of this case, Including the testimony heard at the Trial held on August

26, 2015 and September 11, 2015, fully supports this Court's analysis, findings of fact,

and conclusions of law for both the factors enumerated In 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5328 as

well as the factors enumerated in 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5337(h)(1)-(10).

                                        Page 30 of 31
       The facts and circumstances provided in this case, and summarized above,

provided this Court with sufficient evidence that Father should have Prlmary Custody of

Minor Child and that Minor Child should relocate to California to live with Father,

CONCLUSIQN:

       For all of the foregoing reasons, the Trlal Court's Final Custody Order, which

granted Father Primary Physical Custody, Mother Partial Physical Custody, and both .

parties Joint Legal Custody, dated November 9, 2015, shzuld b ~e            ./,
                                              .         B    HE COU     :     ·

                                       Page 31 of 31