Court Opinion

ID: 9378777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 16:17:07.725976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.015704
License: Public Domain

J-S44025-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    MEGAN MIMM                                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    STEVEN MIMM                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1174 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered August 15, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
                              2021-CV-02142-CU

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                          FILED: MARCH 13, 2023

        Steven Mimm (“Father”) appeals from the order granting primary

physical custody of R.M. and E.M. (collectively “Children”) to Megan Mimm

(“Mother”) and denying his petition for relocation and his petitions for

contempt. Father also claims that the court erred in denying his motion for

recusal and his requests to have Children evaluated by a professionally

licensed psychologist and for a competency hearing for Children and that the

court violated his due process rights. We affirm.

        The trial court provided a detailed factual and procedural history, which

we incorporate herein. Trial Court Opinion, filed Aug. 15, 2022, at 1-14

(“Custody Opinion”). We provide a summary of relevant procedural history.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S44025-22

      Prior to February 2021, both parties resided in, and Children attended

school in, Central Dauphin School District. In February 2021, Father relocated

to Hershey, Pennsylvania, in Derry Township School District. In March 2021,

Mother filed a Complaint in Custody. In May 2021, the court entered a custody

order wherein the parties shared legal and physical custody on a 2-2-3

schedule. In July 2021, Father filed a petition for modification of custody. In

August 2021, Mother filed an emergency petition for special relief and

contempt in custody, alleging Father had enrolled Children in the Derry

Township School District without her consent. The court granted the petition

and ordered that Children be unenrolled from Derry Township School District

and re-enrolled in Central Dauphin School District.

      Father filed a petition for contempt, arguing Mother enrolled Children in

a childcare program without his consent and “threatened to remove” and

“attempted to remove” one of the children from a wrestling program. Petition

for Contempt, filed Oct. 5, 2021, at ¶¶ 5-10. He filed a second petition for

contempt arguing Mother had continued to enroll Children with a childcare

provider, Amazing Sports, without his consent; ordered glasses for E.M.

without Father’s consent; enrolled R.M. in an after-school group instruction

program without his consent; and failed to inform Father of E.M.’s disciplinary

record. Second Petition for Contempt, filed Jan. 14, 2022, at ¶¶13-54.

      In April 2022, the court held two days of hearings, where Father

testified, Children testified in camera, and Mother completed her direct

                                     -2-
J-S44025-22

testimony and part of her cross-examination.1 The court scheduled a third

hearing day for July 20, 2022. Father was counseled at the April hearings, but

in May 2022 his counsel withdrew and he entered his appearance pro se.2

        In May 2022, Father filed a petition for relocation following his move to

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania in the Abington School District and moved for an

expedited hearing. After phone conferences, the court issued an interim order

where the parties shared physical custody of Children on a week on/week off

basis, with custody exchanges occurring on Friday at 5:00 p.m. at a police

station in Dauphin County. Father was to be responsible for the majority of

transportation for all custody exchanges.         Father filed a motion for

reconsideration requesting a change in the time and location for custody

exchanges.3 The court granted the motion in part and ordered that the

exchanges occur on Sunday at 5:00 p.m. It denied the request to change the

location of the exchanges.

        In June 2022, Father filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing outlining

the case’s procedural history and seeking an evidentiary hearing within the

next five days. He argued that he “intend[ed] to introduce, among other

things, emails and other records from Central Dauphin School District.”
____________________________________________

1 The transcript from the first hearing day is not in the certified record. A copy
is in the reproduced record, and no party disputes its accuracy. We may
therefore consider it. Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 1145 n.4
(Pa. 2012).

2   Father is an attorney.

3   Father also filed a notice of appeal, which he subsequently withdrew.

                                           -3-
J-S44025-22

Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, filed June 9, 2022, at ¶ 27. He

maintained any question of admissibility should be determined pretrial. Id. at

¶ 31. In the middle of the 209-paragraph motion, Father also stated that

Mother’s allegedly false claims of abuse she made to Children “call to the issue

of whether [C]hildren are competent as witnesses, and this matter was not

decided [p]re-[t]rial.” Id. at ¶ 67a. The trial court denied the motion, stating

that “it is unclear what exactly [Father] is requesting in [the] Motion.” The

court explained that an evidentiary hearing in the matter “ha[d] already been

scheduled for July 20, 2022,” and the motion did “not raise any exigent

circumstances that would require [the court] to hold a hearing any sooner.”

Amended Interim Order, filed June 13, 2022.

      Father then filed a motion for recusal arguing the Honorable Andrew H.

Dowling (the “trial judge”) could not be fair and impartial. Father maintained

that in 2012, when Father was a criminal defense attorney, he had

represented the trial judge’s former wife at two dockets, which resulted in

guilty pleas. Motion for Recusal, filed June 14, 2022, at ¶ 4. He claimed the

relationship was having an impact on the current custody matter. Id. Father

stated that he did not disclose the relationship sooner because he believed

that “if [it] was an issue, the [trial judge] would have disclosed the prior

representation” and he “believed it was in the interest of [the trial judge’s

former wife] to not be disclosed publicly.” Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. He claimed the prior

representation resulted in sided rulings, including a biased “preliminary

determination” that was done off the record, a “punitive sanction . . . based

                                     -4-
J-S44025-22

on [Father’s] relocation,” the denial of requests for an evidentiary hearing and

for a conference to determine Children’s competency. Id. at ¶¶ 7a-7d. He

further noted the length of time between the filing of his motion for

modification and contempt petitions and the issuance of the court’s decision.

Id. at ¶ 7e.

      The trial court denied the motion to recuse. It pointed out that the case

was assigned to the trial judge in December 2021, and it scheduled a pre-trial

conference for January 27, 2022, which was rescheduled to February by

request of the parties. Following the conference, the court scheduled the trial

for April 20, 2022. It stated that “[b]oth prior to and during trial, counsel for

[Mother] and [Father] repeatedly asked the [trial judge] if he would provide

his impressions of the case up to that point after hearing testimony from both

[Mother] and [Father].” Order, June 16, 2022. The trial judge “assumed that

the parties wanted to utilize [his] impressions to facilitate a settlement

between the parties.” Id. Following the second day of trial, the trial judge

“presented his impressions of how he would rule based on the testimony and

evidence that had been presented up to that point,” but “made clear that there

was still evidence to be heard, and [the trial judge’s] impressions could

change.” Id. The case did not settle and, based on the court’s and the parties’

schedules, a third date was set for July 20, 2022. The court also discussed the

ruling addressing the proposed relocation, noting it held three conference calls

to discuss the relocation and entered an interim order to address custody

issues, including a custody schedule and summer activities. The court stated

                                      -5-
J-S44025-22

that because Father had not obtained court approval prior to his move, it

required Father to provide the majority of transportation for the exchanges.

It pointed out that the parties remained with a 50/50 custody schedule and

the court granted Father’s motion for reconsideration in part and changed the

custody exchanges to Sunday to accommodate Father’s schedule. The court

concluded that “the circumstances mentioned [in the motion for recusal]

would not constitute circumstances under which the [trial judge’s] impartiality

might reasonably be questioned.” Id.

      In June 2022, Father also filed a motion for a telephonic conference

where he requested a conference to discuss myriad evidentiary issues,

including that the “record is totally devoid as to any discussion of the two

minor children[’s] competency to testify as witnesses, as they were directed

to make false abuse claims by [Mother] against [Father],” and claimed that if

Children were incompetent to testify, the finding should be made on the

record. Defendant’s Motion for Telephonic Conference, filed June 30, 2022, at

¶¶ 4g, i. The court held a telephonic conference, and it is unclear from the

record whether the competency of Children was discussed.

      In July 2022, the court held the final day of the hearing, with Father

representing himself pro se. Father completed the cross-examination of

Mother. Father’s domestic partner Kathleen Shea also testified and Father

testified again. Children did not testify. When the court asked whether Father

agreed with Mother that Children should attend counseling, Father stated, “I

believe that in order to determine their counseling need they should be

                                     -6-
J-S44025-22

evaluated by a doctor of psychology who’s – there’s an individual who

specializes in this, Kasey Shienvold. And we should have the kids properly

evaluated prior to the Court rendering the final opinion on this issue.” N.T.,

July 20, 2022, at 240, 246. He stated Children “have been through a trauma”

and “have been forced to deal with” Children and Youth Services, which has

affected their personalities. Id. at 247. He stated that Mother requested

counseling and “what is counseling for if” there is not “mental health stuff

going on.” Id. He claimed Dr. Shienvold’s reports are completed in about six

weeks. Id.

      Mother’s counsel argued that there is “no indication that either child has

any sort of mental health diagnosis at this point” and “[t]hey just need to have

some counseling.” Id. at 246. She stated Dr. Shienvold’s reports take

approximately one year. Id.

      In addition, Father requested an additional day of testimony, so that he

could call five witnesses from Central Dauphin School District. He stated that:

         Substantive nature of the testimony was specifically about
         the programming, the inconsistencies. It will demonstrate
         that [Mother] actually doesn’t know – she, for example, like
         today, she doesn’t know the teachers. She doesn’t know
         how [the] test works. She doesn’t know how the programs
         work. She couldn’t tell you what the teachers specialize in
         or what they even do with the kids. This would just go
         further to show substantively that the things that she said
         are inaccurate. Based on her pleadings, based on her
         statements, she’s testifying inaccurately and it’s getting in
         almost as truth when in fact there’s – that’s why I brought
         the e-mails and I spent all the time – there’s substantial
         amount of evidence that she actually is not participating in

                                     -7-
J-S44025-22

         their schooling in a meaningful way and she doesn’t actually
         know what’s going on.

Id. at 242-43.

      Following the final hearing day of trial, the trial court entered an order

that denied Father’s request for an additional day of testimony to include five

witnesses from Central Dauphin School District, reasoning the testimony was

not relevant to the court’s “determination as to what is in the best interests

of the minor Children.” Order, July 21, 2022. It further denied Father’s request

for an evaluation of Children by Kasey Shienvold, Psy.D., M.B.A., prior to entry

of the decision. The court noted a “major issue in [the] matter is where the

minor Children will attend school for the 2022-2023 school year,” and that

decision must be rendered before the school year starts. Id. Therefore, there

was not sufficient time to set up, perform, and complete an evaluation. The

court further stated that it did “not see any reason for such an evaluation

based on the facts of this case.” Id. The trial court also denied Father’s request

for a transcript prior to submitting a post-trial brief, noting the decision had

to be rendered before the start of the school year. The court further ordered

the parties to submit proposed custody orders within seven days.

      On August 15, 2022, the court issued an order that the parties would

share legal custody of Children and awarded Mother primary physical custody.

It awarded partial physical custody to Father on alternating weekends during

the school year, with extra days if Children had off on a Friday or Monday. It

provided that Mother would have custody of Children from the release of

school for winter break to 11:00 a.m. on December 26. It provided that Father

                                      -8-
J-S44025-22

would have custody from 11:00 a.m. on December 26 through 7:00 p.m. the

day before school starts. It ordered that during the summer Father would have

two weeks of consecutive custody, and Mother would have one week of

custody. The court also denied Father’s petitions for contempt. The court

issued an opinion in support of its orders. Father filed a timely notice of appeal.

      Father raises the following issues:

         1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to recuse itself
         where it harbored direct bias that bore on all of Appellant’s
         claims?

         2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering
         the August 15, 2022, orders where it did not permit
         Appellant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues by
         failing to permit Appellant to call properly subpoenaed
         witnesses bearing on custody and relocation issues?

         3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering
         the August 15, 2022, orders by refusing [to] allow the minor
         children to be evaluated by a professionally licensed
         psychologist that specialized in custody and school choice
         matters and refusing to determine the minor children’s
         (ages 9 and 11) competency as witnesses?

         4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering
         the August 15, 2022, orders when it entered a custody and
         relocation order that was not in the best interests of the
         children?

         5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering
         the August 15, 2022, orders when it improperly dismissed
         both of Appellant’s motions for contempt after
         acknowledging that Appellee had engaged in the conduct
         alleged in the motions?

Father’s Br. at 7.

      In his first issue, Father argues that the trial judge erred in failing to

recuse himself. Father maintains that he previously represented the trial

                                       -9-
J-S44025-22

judge’s former wife in criminal matters. Father argues that his representation

of the trial judge’s former wife “resulted in sided rulings” because the court

made a “‘preliminary determination’ . . . while the case was mid-trial.” Id. at

17. He claims this preliminary determination occurred before he presented a

case-in-chief and while Mother was being cross-examined.4 Father also

maintains the trial judge issued a punitive sanction based on Father’s

relocation, without holding a hearing; denied his request for an evidentiary

hearing; and required a subpoena for Central Dauphin staff members. Father

also points out the court did not rule on the motion for modification for 311

days, the first contempt petition for 246 days, and the second petition for 112

days. Father maintains the court did not meaningfully respond to his motion

to recuse.

        Father further claims he “assisted in political matters which were

adverse to the [trial judge’s] personal interests, and [the trial judge’s] son

attended the school district at issue in the custody and relocation

proceedings.” Id. at 10. He claims the trial judge did not disclose that his son

previously attended Central Dauphin School District and claims the judge’s

relationship with the school district created a bias. He further maintains the

trial judge failed to disclose that in 2008, when the judge ran for the Court of

Common Pleas, Father worked for judicial candidates who “possessed

interests adverse to the [trial judge’s]” interests. Id. at 20. He maintains it

____________________________________________

4   We note that Father was the first person to testify at the April hearing.

                                          - 10 -
J-S44025-22

would have been futile for him to raise these additional claims before the trial

court.

         This Court reviews the denial of a motion to recuse for an abuse of

discretion. Bowman v. Rand Spear & Assocs., P.C., 234 A.3d 848, 862

(Pa.Super. 2020). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment,

but occurs only where the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment

exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias

or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record.” Id. (quoting Lomas v.

Kravitz, 170 A.3d 380, 389 (Pa. 2017)).

         A judge must recuse “wherever there is substantial doubt as to the

jurist’s ability to preside impartially.” Id. (citation omitted). “[B]ecause the

integrity of the judiciary is compromised by the appearance of impropriety, a

jurist’s recusal is necessary where [the judge’s] behavior appears to be biased

or prejudicial.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Benchoff, 700 A.2d 1289

(Pa.Super. 1997)). However, “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings

. . . do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display

a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 61

(Pa.Super. 2014)).

         “[A] party must seek recusal of a jurist at the earliest possible moment,

i.e., when the party knows of the facts that form the basis for a motion to

recuse.” Lomas, 170 A.3d at 390. “If the party fails to present a motion to

                                       - 11 -
J-S44025-22

recuse at that time, then the party’s recusal issue is time-barred and waived.”

Id. (citations omitted).5

       Father’s alleged representation of the trial judge’s former wife occurred

in 2012. Therefore, he knew of this representation when the trial judge was

assigned to the case in December 2021. He did not move for recusal until May

2022, after the court had held a two-day hearing and had scheduled a third

day. In his motion for recusal, Father argued the trial judge should recuse

based on Father’s prior representation of the trial judge’s former wife. He did

not claim the court was biased because of Father’s prior political work or

because the trial judge’s son previously attended Central Dauphin School

District.

       Father failed to seek recusal at the earliest possible moment, that is,

when the trial judge was assigned to the case. He therefore waived the issue

he raised in the motion and the additional issues raised on appeal. He claims

there is an exception to waiver where it appears from the circumstances that

a timely objection to judicial misconduct would be meaningless. Father’s Br.

at 15 (citing Dennis v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 833 A.2d 348, 352 n.2

(Pa.Cmwlth. 2003)).

       The Dennis court relied Commonwealth v. Hammer, 494 A.2d 1054

(Pa. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Grant, 813
____________________________________________

5 See also Bowman, 234 A.3d at 862 (“A party seeking recusal must assert
specific grounds in support of the recusal motion before the trial judge has
issued a ruling on the substantive matter before him or her.”) (citation
omitted).

                                          - 12 -
J-S44025-22

A.2d 48 (Pa. 2002). In Hammer, the appellant claimed the court’s conduct

during trial was prejudicial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the

claim was not waived even though the appellant had not lodged a timely

objection. Id. at 1058. The Court reasoned that “[t]he role of the judge being

inextricably intertwined with the dispensing of justice, it would be manifestly

unjust to permit the embodiment of justice in the courtroom to thwart the

criminal process without benefit of relief to the accused where the judge has

crossed beyond the threshold of impartiality and where objection by counsel

may be to no avail.” Id. at 1060. In Hammer, the trial judge repeatedly

interrupted defense counsel during his direct examination of the defendant

and defense witnesses to ask prosecutorial-style questions, failed to rule on

defense objections, and bolstered the Commonwealth’s case with his

comments and questions. Id. at 1060-64.

      Here, Father knew the facts that supported the motion for recusal when

the trial judge was assigned the case, and did not seek his recusal. The limited

exception to the waiver doctrine applicable to cases of judicial bias is not

relevant here. Father’s complaints – that the court entered adverse rulings

against him – do not amount to the kind of bias that would create a situation

where it would be meaningless to object. Cf. id.

      In his second issue, Father argues the court abused its discretion when

it did not permit Father a full and fair opportunity to litigate his issues. Father

maintains the court erred in failing to permit him to call properly subpoenaed

witnesses. He claims this failure violated his right to due process. He argues

                                      - 13 -
J-S44025-22

he was “stymied in his attempts to present documentary evidence establishing

the allegations at the evidentiary hearing, and thus sought to call the properly

subpoenaed creators of that documentary evidence.” Father’s Br. at 23. He

claims the emails he sought to introduce were released under the Family

Education Rights and Privacy Act and are business records exempt from the

hearsay rule. He claims the witnesses would have “established [Mother’s]

course of alienation and inflammatory false statements regarding [Father] and

his treatment of [Mother] and their children.” Id. at 24.

      “In custody hearings, parents have at stake fundamental rights:

namely, the right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control

of their child.” S.T. v. R.W., 192 A.3d 1155, 1161 (Pa.Super. 2018). “Due

process must be afforded to parents to safeguard these constitutional rights.”

Id. The fundamental components of due process are “[f]ormal notice and an

opportunity to be heard.” Id. (quoting J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1268

(Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc)). “[P]rocedural due process requires, at its core,

adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and the chance to defend oneself

before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case.” Id.

(quoting J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1269 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc)).

“Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the

situation demands.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Father maintains the court denied his due process rights because it did

not admit emails from the school district and declined to hold an additional

day of hearings to permit testimony from employees of the school district.

                                     - 14 -
J-S44025-22

     The trial court explained that the emails were inadmissible hearsay and

the employees’ testimony was not relevant. The court reasoned:

        During the Second Half of Trial, Father continually
        referenced his belief that Mother was alienating him from
        the teachers and principal at West Hanover Elementary
        School. Initially, it must be noted that this belief, regardless
        of its truth or untruth, has nothing to do with the best
        interests of the Children. One of the factors that we look at
        is whether one parent is attempting to alienate the other
        parent from the Children. It is irrelevant to a custody action
        whether one party is alienating the other party from people
        who are not the Children. As such, we refused Father’s
        request to hear testimony from teachers and the principal
        at West Hanover Elementary School mainly because such
        testimony was irrelevant to our determination of what is in
        the best interests of the Children.

        Moreover, the points that Father was trying to make, i.e.[,]
        that Mother communicated with employees of the school
        without copying Father and that Mother made disparaging
        remarks about Father to school employees, were easily
        made by presenting Mother with emails that she had sent
        and having her acknowledge them and admit to sending
        them.18 Mother’s admissions made the testimony of the
        West Hanover teachers and the Principal redundant because
        they would have just confirmed what Mother admitted to.
        Thus, we found that testimony of the West Hanover teachers
        and Principal would have been irrelevant and unnecessarily
        cumulative, and it was proper to exclude such testimony.
           18 The emails from school employees to Mother were
           properly excluded based on hearsay. Regardless of
           whether these emails constitute school records that
           can be produced pursuant to a Right to Know request,
           that does not mean that they are automatically
           admissible as substantive evidence. Father kept
           claiming this at Trial, but he did not produce any case
           law or statutory authority that supported his
           argument.

Custody Opinion at 24-25 (emphasis in original).

                                    - 15 -
J-S44025-22

       Here, Father had notice of the custody hearing and a meaningful

opportunity to present a defense. The court held three days of hearings, where

Father, Mother, Shea, and Children testified, and Father was permitted to

admit relevant evidence and engage in cross-examination. Father’s claim that

the court violated his due process rights by declining to admit testimony and

evidence the court properly found irrelevant, redundant, and inadmissible

lacks merit.6

       In his third issue, Father argues the trial court abused its discretion by

refusing to allow Children to be evaluated by a professionally licensed

psychologist that specialized in custody and school choice matters and

refusing to determine the competency of Children as witnesses. He maintains

Mother tainted Children due to her “direction to fabricate allegations against

[Father].” Father’s Br. at 30. He claims Mother told Children to lie to

counselors. He claims he requested a guardian ad litem, but the court denied

the request. He points out that Shea testified that Mother was a compulsive

liar. He argues that because there was evidence of taint, the court should have

held a competency hearing. He maintains that “[Mother’s] actions . . . resulted

in deleterious psychological conditions for the children, and the court clearly

erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing or have the children assessed

by a licensed psychologist.” Id. at 31-32.

____________________________________________

6Father does not raise a challenge to the evidentiary ruling. Even if he did,
we would conclude the court did not abuse its discretion.

                                          - 16 -
J-S44025-22

      This issue includes two separate sub-issues: whether the court erred in

failing to conduct a competency hearing and whether it erred in denying

Father’s request to have Children undergo a psychological evaluation.

      Father has waived his claim that the court should have held a

competency hearing for Children due to alleged taint. Father has not identified

where in the record the request for a conference to determine competency

appears. We located a one-paragraph request in a June 2022 motion for a

telephonic conference and a mention of competency in a June request for an

evidentiary hearing. Those requests were after the Children had already

testified, in April 2022. Because he did not raise his taint claim before the

Children testified, he waived it. See Commonwealth v. Gray, 2021 WL

856169, at *5-6 (Pa.Super. Mar. 8, 2021) (finding party challenging

competency of child witness must lodge objection to competency to preserve

the error); Pa.R.E. 601, comment (providing determination of competency is

“a factual question to be resolved by the court as a preliminary question under

Rule 104” and “[t]he party challenging competency bears the burden of

proving grounds of incompetency by clear and convincing evidence”). If Father

claims he made an earlier request, it was incumbent on him to point us to the

location in the record where we could find it. His failure to do so amounts to

waiver of any such claim.

      Father’s challenge to the denial of his request for a psychological

evaluation is also meritless. Father made the request on the last hearing day,

in late July 2022. When the court asked whether Father agreed with Mother

                                    - 17 -
J-S44025-22

that Children should attend counseling, Father stated he wanted Children to

be evaluated by a doctor of psychology before the Court rendered its final

opinion on the issue. N.T., July 20, 2022, at 240, 246.

      Pennsylvania    Rule   of   Civil   Procedure   1915.8   governs   mental

examinations in custody proceedings and provides that the “court may order

the child(ren) and/or any party to submit to and fully participate in an

evaluation by an appropriate expert or experts” upon its own motion, the

motion of a party, or by agreement of the parties. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.8(a).

Whether to order an evaluation is within the trial court’s discretion. Jordan v.

Jackson, 876 A.2d 443, 455 (Pa.Super. 2005). We review the trial court’s

decision in this regard for an abuse of discretion. Id.

      Here, the trial court denied Father’s request for an evaluation because

there was not enough time to conduct an evaluation and for the court to render

a custody decision before the school year began. It explained that “[a] major

issue in this matter is where the minor Children will attend school for the

2022-2023 school year. As such, a decision must be rendered before the

school year starts.” Order, July 21, 2022. The court pointed out there was not

enough time to “set up, perform, and complete an evaluation before the school

year starts.” Id. Moreover, the court stated that it “d[id] not see any reason

for such an evaluation based on the facts of th[e] case.” Id.

      The court did not abuse its discretion. There was not sufficient time to

complete an evaluation prior to the issuance of the decision and it was not an

                                      - 18 -
J-S44025-22

abuse of discretion to conclude the facts did not support a need for the

evaluation.7

        In his fourth issue, Father argues that the court abused its discretion

because the custody and relocation order was, in Father’s view, not in

Children’s best interest. He argues he and Shea traveled with Children and

exposed them to educational excursions, were responsible               for their

educational enrichment, and provided healthcare and a wonderful home. He

argues Children love Shea, who watched and tutored Children over the

summer, he has Children in extracurricular activities, and he attended

practices and matches. He argues Mother does not communicate with him,

and when she does, she does not follow up. He claims Mother does not attend

Children’s activities and attempted to remove Children from wrestling.
____________________________________________

7   The trial court found Father withdrew his request for a GAL:

           There was some testimony about Father requesting that a
           [GAL] be appointed for the Children. Specifically, Father
           introduced a letter dated May 26, 2021, wherein his counsel
           requested that a GAL be appointed for the Children. There
           is nothing in the record to show that a GAL was ever
           appointed. Father thereafter filed his Petition for
           Modification on July 30, 2021, but did not include a request
           for the appointment of a GAL in that Petition. A Conciliation
           was held on October 27, 2021. In the Conference Summary
           Report following the conciliation, the Conciliator notes that
           Mother requested a GAL and Father opposed the
           appointment of a GAL. Additionally, the possibility of
           appointing a GAL was raised by Mother at the First Half of
           Trial, but Father opposed the appointment at that time. As
           such, based on the record before us, Father requested a GAL
           in May 2021, but later withdrew his request.

Custody Opinion at 11-12.

                                          - 19 -
J-S44025-22

      Father further asserts that Mother fabricated criminal allegations against

Father and instructed Children to make false allegations that he hit and

spanked them and threw their toys. Father claims Mother “unilaterally signed

[C]hildren up for the Amazing Sports program which was devoid of any

educational or cultural significance,” and continued to do so over his objection.

Father’s Br. at 39. Father maintains that if Children remain in Central Dauphin

School District Mother “will continue to disrupt the school and [C]hildren’s

schooling.” Id. at 40. He claims Mother engaged in alienation and slander of

him to employees at the school and does not share information regarding

Children with Father, and, although he has repeatedly requested to be

included on all communications, the school does not do so. Father maintains

Mother does not require Children to complete homework and she falsified

forms, and claims Mother directed E.M. to wear bi-focals, which, he alleges

were “wrongly prescribed.” Id. at 42.

      Father argues he moved to Hershey to provide Children with a better

school district and because Mother allegedly spread “false allegations

regarding [Father] and [C]hildren.” Id. He claims he was forced to move from

his Hershey residence by his landlord because his dog was barking. He argues

that moving to the Abington School District positively affected Children. He

states that the neighborhood is family-oriented and Children play with other

                                     - 20 -
J-S44025-22

children in the neighborhood. He points out that his family is in the area,

including close family members who work for the school district.8

       We review a custody order for an abuse of discretion. G.A. v. D.L., 72

A.3d 264, 268 (Pa.Super. 2013). We must accept a trial court’s factual findings

when the record supports them, and we defer to the trial court’s credibility

determinations. Id. We must determine “whether the trial court’s conclusions

are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Id. (quoting Collins,

897 A.2d at 471). We will reject the trial court’s conclusions “only if they

involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings

of the trial court.” Id. (quoting Collins, 897 A.2d at 471).

       This Court consistently has held that:

          [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)).

       Father’s issue challenges both the decision regarding custody and the

denial of the relocation petition. The court did not abuse its discretion when

awarding custody. The Child Custody Act requires a trial court to consider all

____________________________________________

8He states that “[i]n the alternative, the court should have allowed for a 60/40
order which would not have totally and indefinitely excluded [Father] from any
Christmas time with” Children. Father’s Br. at 45.

                                          - 21 -
J-S44025-22

of the Section 5328(a) factors when “ordering any form of custody.” 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). In child custody cases, the paramount concern “is the

best interests of the child.” R.L. v. M.A., 209 A.3d 391, 395 (Pa.Super. 2019)

(quoting C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 909 (Pa. 2018)). “The best-interests

standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which

legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and

spiritual well-being.” Id. (quoting M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 112

(Pa.Super. 2017)). The custody factors to be considered include:

         (a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court
         shall determine the best interest of the child by considering
         all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those
         factors which affect the safety of the child, including the
         following:

         (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit
         frequent and continuing contact between the child and
         another party.

         (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or
         member of the party's household, whether there is a
         continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and
         which party can better provide adequate physical
         safeguards and supervision of the child.

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

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

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

         (5) The availability of extended family.

         (6) The child’s sibling relationships.

                                     - 22 -
J-S44025-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         (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).

      Here, the trial court considered all the custody factors before issuing its

custody decision. Its reasoning included that:

         •   Father was verbally abusive toward Mother and individuals he
             interacted with related to Children and he was condescending
             toward Mother and the school teachers;

         •   Children need stability in their education and Father’s living and
             work situations were not stable, noting Father had moved

                                     - 23 -
J-S44025-22

              residences in February 2021 and again in June 2022, shortly after
              testifying he planned to remain in the Derry School District until
              Children graduated high school;

          •   Father’s extended family were close to his new home;

          •   Children did not express a strong preference toward either party;

          •   Father was “at least attempting to harm Mother’s relationship with
              Children;”9

          •   Mother was more likely to provide a loving and nurturing
              relationship that is adequate to address Children’s emotional
              needs;

          •   Mother attends to the educational needs of Children and the
              emotional needs;

          •   Father cooperates with Mother only when she agrees with him,
              but Mother seems willing to cooperate and when she disagrees
              she expresses valid concerns; and

          •   any alienation Father feels from school employees is “mainly a
              result of his actions and his communications” with the employees.

See Custody Opinion at 14-25.

       The record supports the court’s factual findings, and it did not abuse its

discretion when awarding custody and, after reviewing the briefs, the certified

record, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we affirm on the basis

of the trial court’s opinion.

       The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for

relocation. The Child Custody Act provides that when a custodial party seeks

to relocate a child’s residence, the party must petition the court, and the court

must consider the relocation factors of Section 5337(h). 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

____________________________________________

9The court found Father’s and Shea’s testimony that Mother was trying to
manipulate Children to not be credible.

                                          - 24 -
J-S44025-22

5337(h). Section 5337(h) provides that a court should apply the following

factors to determine whether relocation would be in a child's best interest:

         (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.

         (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.

                                      - 25 -
J-S44025-22

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

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).

      Here, the trial court reviewed all the relocation factors, and found

relocation was not in Children’s best interest. The court found:

         •   Children are used to spending half of their time with each parent,
             which is no longer possible;

         •   Children needed stability in their education; it was feasible to
             preserve the relationships of Children with both parents through
             a suitable custody schedule, with exchanges occurring at a half
             way point;

         •   there was a pattern on Father’s part to harm Children’s
             relationship with Mother;

         •   the relocation had an emotional benefit to Father, but was
             detrimental to him financially;

         •   it would be emotionally beneficial for Children to be closer to
             Father’s extended family, but would not be emotionally or
             educationally beneficial for Children to start at a new school;

         •   Father’s claim that he relocated because of “fear and protection”
             was not credible, and although it may be in Father’s best interest
             to relocate, it does not mean it is in Children’s best interest.

See Custody Opinion at 25-28.

      The court did not abuse its discretion, and, after a review of the briefs,

the certified record, and the trial court opinion, we affirm on the basis of the

trial court’s opinion.

      In his final issue, Father argues the court abused its discretion in

entering the orders denying his petitions for contempt. He claims Mother

violated the May 2021 custody order by signing Children up for Amazing

Sports without his consent and by “threatening and attempting to remove

R.M. from the wrestling program.” Father’s Br. at 48. He argues Mother’s claim

                                     - 26 -
J-S44025-22

she did not want Children to wrestle because of COVID was pretextual and

disingenuous because Children were in other situations where they could

potentially contract COVID. Father claims Mother wanted to pull them from

wrestling because he suggested the activity. He further maintains that Mother

signed R.M. up for a second extended day program at school where the

program did not address his fluency concerns. Father claims Mother failed to

inform him of disciplinary forms, noting the trial court found Mother should

have informed Father of the form but declined to hold Mother in contempt for

failing to do so. He also maintains the court held Mother wrongly ordered

glasses over Father’s objection.

      We review a civil contempt order for an abuse of discretion. Harcar v.

Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citing Hopkins v. Byes, 954

A.2d 654, 655–56 (Pa.Super. 2008)). A trial court abuses its discretion only if

“it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.”

Id. (citation omitted). Further, we defer to the trial court’s credibility

determinations where they are supported by the record, “as that court has

had the opportunity to observe [the witnesses’] demeanor.” Id. at 1236

(quoting Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

      To be in civil contempt, a party must have violated a court order, and

the complaining party must prove that the party did so, by a preponderance

of the evidence. J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1264 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en

banc). A party seeking a finding of contempt must establish: “(1) that the

contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to

                                    - 27 -
J-S44025-22

have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor’s violation was

volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.” Id.

(quoting P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702, 706 n.7 (Pa.Super. 2012)).

      The trial court found Mother did not violate the court order when she

enrolled Children in Amazing Sports during her custody time or when she

voiced opposition to signing Children up for wrestling due to concerns of

COVID exposure. It found Mother should not have signed R.M. up for the

second after school program, but that she did not do so with wrongful intent,

and she withdrew R.M. from the program after Father objected. It found that

Mother should have provided Father with the disciplinary form, but that it was

not a violation of the custody order because it was a day-to-day decision and,

further, it was not contempt because there was no wrongful intent. The court

further found that both parents acted badly with respect to the eyeglasses and

found Mother should not have ordered the glasses over Father’s objection, but

that she did not have the requisite wrongful intent. It therefore denied the

contempt petitions. After a review of the briefs, the certified record, and the

well-reasoned trial court opinion, we conclude the court did not abuse its

discretion and affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Custody Opinion

at 29-34.

                                     - 28 -
J-S44025-22

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/13/2023

                          - 29 -