A.D. v. A.B.
747 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 3, 2017Background
- Parents share legal custody of child (born July 2011); August 2013 agreed order gave Mother primary physical custody and Father partial custody with relocation to Lancaster allowed and venue transferred to Montgomery County.
- Father filed a petition to modify custody on Feb 24, 2016 seeking primary physical custody and a school determination for the 2016–2017 school year (child entering kindergarten).
- Three-day custody hearing was held in Jan 2017; witnesses included Father, Mother, a court-appointed custody evaluator (Dr. Rosenstein), family members, neighbors, and school personnel.
- Trial court (Feb 2, 2017) retained shared legal custody, awarded shared physical custody for remainder of 2016–2017, granted Father increasing custody (primary during the school year effective Sept 1, 2017) and directed the child attend Gladwyne Elementary in Lower Merion; summer and holiday schedules were set and Mother was given limited weekday and alternating weekend time.
- Mother appealed, raising multiple claims: abuse of discretion in awarding Father primary custody and changing school, failure to consider prior convictions/orders and relocation rules, evidentiary rulings on pre-2014 matters, venue/jurisdiction errors, ignoring evaluator’s recommendation, and misapplication of § 5328 best-interest factors.
- Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court thoroughly applied the § 5328(a) best-interest factors, relied on competent evidence (including the evaluator), and did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by effectively awarding Father primary physical custody and changing child’s school | Mother argued the change was unsupported by evidence and significantly reduced her custodial time and conflicted with her work schedule | Father argued the change served the child’s best interests (stability, school continuity) and was supported by testimony and evaluator’s report | Court upheld award; found decision supported by competent evidence and best-interest analysis favoring stability and Father’s ability to provide continuity |
| Whether court failed to consider Father’s prior criminal conviction and prior orders | Mother argued the court ignored relevant prior events/orders that should weigh against Father | Father argued trial court considered relevant history and properly limited older evidence as irrelevant | Court found no abuse; trial court considered appropriate evidence and explained its weight |
| Whether trial court improperly excluded pre-Dec 2014 evidence but then relied on it | Mother said court precluded older evidence but nonetheless used it to inform findings | Father relied on trial court’s discretion in evidentiary rulings and the court’s factual determinations | Court rejected claim; appellate review defers to trial court credibility and evidentiary decisions absent abuse of discretion |
| Venue/jurisdiction and relocation procedure (whether relocation factors should have applied) | Mother contended child’s primary residence had been Lancaster and the petition effectively sought relocation without proper notice; venue and relocation factors were ignored | Father maintained Montgomery County venue was appropriate after prior transfer and interim orders; court had authority to decide custody and school placement | Court found venue and jurisdiction proper under prior orders and declined to overturn based on record; relocation rules and § 5328 factors were considered as required |
| Whether trial court disregarded evaluator’s recommendation that Mother retain primary custody if parties didn’t move closer | Mother argued evaluator favored her for primary custody absent relocation and court ignored that | Father pointed to the evaluator’s mixed findings and the court’s independent weighing of all evidence including evaluator’s observations about Mother’s parenting style | Court acknowledged evaluator but exercised its factfinding authority to weigh factors differently; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court misapplied § 5328 best-interest factors | Mother claimed the statutory factors were misapplied or not sufficiently considered | Father argued the court properly applied § 5328 and emphasized stability/education factors favoring Father | Court detailed analysis of § 5328(a) factors in its opinion, weighed factors (some for Father, some equal) and found the award in child’s best interest; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for custody factual findings and appellate scope)
- Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate review limitations on reweighing custody evidence)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best-interests standard and custody review principles)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best-interests standard described case-by-case)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (best-interests considerations for child welfare)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirement that trial court explain consideration of § 5328 factors)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (test whether record supports trial court’s custody conclusions)