A.C.F. (B.) v. J.P.B.
154 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 19, 2016Background
- Parents share legal custody; Mother has primary physical custody; Father has partial physical custody per a 2008 consent order.
- Father filed a petition to modify custody (June 2014) seeking more summer time and changes to holidays and transportation.
- Hearing officer recommended a midway turnaround point for exchanges; hearings occurred in Jan. and Apr. 2015; hearing transcripts were later reviewed by the trial court.
- Trial court (Dec. 31, 2015) adopted a modification designating the Blue Mountain Service Plaza on the PA Turnpike as the default exchange point between residences ~200 miles apart.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court improperly changed the exchange location sua sponte, the change forces excessive travel (7–8 hours roundtrip) harmful to children, and the court failed to apply the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) best‑interest factors.
- Superior Court affirmed, concluding transportation was litigated below, the court permissibly selected a midpoint exchange location, and § 5328(a) need not be analyzed in full for discrete ancillary modifications.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by modifying exchange location/transportation provision | Trial court improperly altered travel term (not requested) and imposed excessive travel on children, contrary to their best interests | Transportation and exchange location were raised in Father’s petition and at hearings; a fair midpoint is equitable and minimizes total travel burden | Affirmed: court did not err — transportation was before the court; midpoint exchange (Blue Mountain) reasonable |
| Whether trial court had to apply all § 5328(a) best‑interest factors | Full § 5328(a) analysis required for any custody modification; failure to apply factors makes decision unreasonable | For discrete, ancillary modifications (exchange location/transportation) the court need not analyze all § 5328(a) factors; must still ensure best interest overall | Affirmed: court properly relied on precedent that § 5328(a) is mandatory when awarding or changing a form of custody, but not necessarily for subsidiary modifications; court adequately considered best interests |
| Whether decision conflicted with Hill v. Hill (relief not requested) | Modification granted relief not requested so Hill prohibits it | Distinguish Hill: Hill involved an impermissible hybrid award not requested; here transportation was litigated and requested | Affirmed: Hill is distinguishable; court did not grant unrequested statutory relief |
Key Cases Cited
- M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§ 5328(a) factors required when awarding/changing a form of custody but not necessarily for discrete ancillary modifications)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explains § 5328(a) factors are designed for deciding form of custody; not every subsidiary dispute requires full factor analysis)
- Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court may not grant relief that was neither requested nor permitted by law — discussed and distinguished)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court’s custody discretion is entitled to great deference; appellate court defers to credibility findings)
- M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines abuse of discretion standard in custody matters)
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Child Custody Act applies to proceedings commenced after its effective date)