A.D.H. v. M.H., A.D.H. v. M.H. No. 2458 EDA 2016

Background

Parents (M.H. — Father; A.D.H. — Mother) share four children (two 12-year-old boys, two 10-year-old girls). High-conflict custody litigation began after marital breakdown triggered by Father’s admitted infidelity and viewing of pornography.
An agreed Interim Custody Order (June 24, 2015) awarded Mother primary physical custody and gave Father partial custody on an alternating schedule; parties were to use the "Our Family Wizard" app for communications.
Mother repeatedly withheld visitation (Father documented 27 denials over ~5 months) and sometimes sent only some children to exchanges; trial court found Mother in contempt of the Interim Order.
A CCES evaluator recommended joint legal custody with Mother primary custodian and recommended Father receive regular parenting time plus mental-health evaluation and counseling for children and father.
At the July 11, 2016 hearing the trial court found most §5328(a) best-interest factors either favored Father or were equal, explicitly found Mother had alienated the children and was "clearly" in contempt, yet awarded Mother primary physical custody and limited Father to partial custody (second and fourth weekends).
The Superior Court vacated and remanded, holding the custody award was manifestly unreasonable in light of the court’s own findings that largely favored Father or were neutral; the matter was remanded for entry of a custody order consistent with those findings.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether it was proper to award Mother primary physical custody when trial court’s §5328 findings favored Father or were equal and Mother was found to have alienated children and be in contempt	Trial court’s statutory-factor findings overwhelmingly favored Father or were neutral; awarding Mother primary custody was unreasonable and inconsistent with those findings	Trial court had discretion to weigh factors and identify the most salient ones; primary-caregiver status, evaluator recommendation, and concern about further turmoil supported Mother’s primary custody	Superior Court: Vacated and remanded — custody award was manifestly unreasonable given the trial court’s own findings favoring Father or neutral on most factors
Whether trial court could reduce Father’s custodial time below interim order / CCES recommendation without specific findings	Reduction was unjustified because trial court gave no rationale tied to best-interest factors to cut Father’s time below interim/CCES-recommended schedule	Trial court explained additional lengthy make-up time would cause turmoil for the children and was not in their best interests; trial court discretion governs schedule adjustments	Superior Court: Agreed reduction was unsupported by the court’s findings; remanded to enter order consistent with findings
Whether trial court erred in not imposing sanctions or meaningful accountability for Mother’s contempt	Father argued trial court acknowledged contempt but failed to provide make-up time, counsel fees, or other remedial measures	Trial court said it considered make-up time and fees and intended to address on reconsideration but declined extensive make-up time to avoid child turmoil; reconsideration procedures limited post-appeal	Superior Court: Criticized the lack of remedial ordering given contempt finding and remanded for a custody order consistent with findings (noting trial court could have ordered make-up time or fees)
Whether trial court abused discretion by not ordering co-parent counseling or specifying holiday/vacation schedule	Father argued court should mandate co-parent counseling and a detailed holiday/vacation plan given communication breakdown and contempt findings	Trial court noted ordering counseling is discretionary under §5333(a) and did provide custody coverage for national holidays and left other holidays to parties to arrange	Superior Court: Did not find mandatory counseling required; primary legal error was the mismatch between findings and custody outcome, so remanded on that basis

Key Cases Cited

W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court may not reward a parent with primary custody when statutory best-interest factors overwhelmingly favor the other parent)
J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate scope and deference in custody matters; trial court selects which factors are most salient)
M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for custody orders and appellate interference only for abuse of discretion)