A.D.C. v. D.C.
568 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Mother (Russian citizen) and Father (U.S. citizen) are parents of twins and divorced; custody matters were before a Columbia County trial court and Special Master.
- Master issued a custody recommendation restricting Mother from taking the children to Russia in 2016 without court authorization, allowing trips beginning in 2017 unless otherwise ordered.
- Trial court adopted the Master’s recommendations and on June 24, 2016 ordered Mother not to travel to Russia with the children without prior court or Father’s written authorization.
- Mother later moved (Feb. 27, 2017) to authorize travel; after a hearing the court denied the motion and affirmed the prior order; Mother appealed.
- Mother challenged the court’s reliance on international relations concerns (and alleged failure to consider Hague Convention status), claimed the court undervalued the children’s ties to her extended family, alleged bias against Russia, and argued the court failed to apply the Custody Act’s §5328 factors and provide required rationale.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding waiver of some objections, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that the §5328 factors were not required for this discrete ancillary travel authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court relied on inadmissible/extraneous evidence (international relations) and ignored Hague Convention evidence | Trial court based decision on presumption of instability between U.S. and Russia and ignored Russia’s Hague Convention status | Court’s consideration of geopolitical instability was appropriate; evidence weighed by trial court | Waived for failure to object; alternatively no abuse of discretion—trial court could take judicial notice of contentious U.S.-Russia relations |
| Whether Father had to present expert testimony about international relations | Mother argued expert proof was required to support claims about international instability | Father relied on trial court’s discretion and judicial notice | Waived; no requirement for expert testimony where court took judicial notice and weighed evidence |
| Whether court failed to consider children’s ties to Mother’s extended family | Mother argued court undervalued those relationships and should have allowed travel rather than forcing relatives to travel to U.S. | Father argued best interests and safety/avoidance of international dispute supported restricting travel | Denied—the court considered the relationships; appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility and weight determinations |
| Whether trial court displayed bias against Russia or Mother | Mother alleged comments showed national-origin bias and merited reversal/recusal | Father and court viewed comments as attempts to explain concerns and not evidence of bias | Denied—statements did not demonstrate disqualifying bias and disagreement with counsel is not proof of bias |
| Whether court erred by not explicitly analyzing all 16 factors in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5328(a) and by not providing statutory rationale | Mother contended the Custody Act factors and §5328(d) rationale were required | Court and Father argued the motion sought ancillary travel authorization, not custody modification, so full §5328(a) analysis was unnecessary | Denied—appeal untimely/waived as to earlier order; for travel authorization (ancillary matter) full §5328(a) factor list is not required; best interests considered |
Key Cases Cited
- R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for custody orders and deference on credibility)
- Kinley v. Bierly, 876 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standards and limits for judicial notice under Pa.R.E. 201)
- Fatemi v. Fatemi, 537 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1988) (historical facts sufficiently notorious may be judicially noticed)
- In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 2010) (issue preservation and waiver require timely, specific objections)
- M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishes when §5328 factors are required for custody modifications)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (clarifies best-interests consideration for custody modifications)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing cases where a modification altered type/amount of custody and required full §5328 analysis)