A.K.-D. v. D.E.D., A.K.-D. v. D.E.D. No. 2265 EDA 2016

Background

Parents (Mother in York, PA; Father in Indianapolis, IN) share legal and month-to-month physical custody of their son I.D., born 2011, who is non‑verbal and diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Mother filed emergency petitions (contempt and special relief) alleging Father failed to provide consistent services in Indiana and I.D. regressed; Father counter-petitioned claiming Mother obstructed services and sought participation in intensive therapy in Indiana.
Multiple hearings were held over ~18 months; the court ordered evaluations but parties later said they could not afford them and asked the court to decide based on the testimonial record.
On June 21, 2016, the trial court issued a custody order that essentially reaffirmed the September 8, 2014 shared custody schedule (alternating months) and explained its Section 5328(a) analysis; Mother appealed.
Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court considered all statutorily required best‑interest factors, whether it misweighed expert testimony and delay prejudiced Mother, and whether judicial bias required recusal; the appeal was affirmed but the contempt petitions were remanded to the trial court for adjudication.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether court misapplied custody factors (child's special needs, distance, siblings)	Court should prioritize a non‑verbal ASD child’s need for extreme consistency; long distance (560+ miles) makes alternating months harmful	Existing shared custody was workable; court considered distance and special needs in its analysis	Court properly considered and weighed Section 5328 factors; affirmed
Weight given to experts (Mother’s long‑term neurodevelopmental pediatrician v. Father’s developmental pediatrician)	Mother’s expert with extensive history with child should have been given greater weight	Trial court credited witnesses it found more persuasive based on testimony and observations	Court deferred to trial court’s credibility determinations; no abuse of discretion
Definition and application of “consistency” for ASD child (changing schedule every 4 weeks)	Alternating month schedule creates inconsistent treatment approaches across states and harms child’s development	Court found evidence supported maintaining status quo and accounted for need for services; parties were ordered to propose evaluators	Court rejected claim that schedule change alone required modification; affirmed
Delay in concluding trial and alleged prejudice (stale testimony; irreparable harm)	Year‑long process prejudiced Mother and allowed Father to continue noncompliance	Delay attributable in part to extensive witness testimony; court considered all testimony	No reversible error; trial court considered evidence and delay did not render testimony inadmissible or stale
Alleged judicial bias	Mother claims judge favored Father and made adverse rulings showing bias	No recusal motion was filed below; adverse rulings do not prove bias	Claim waived for failure to seek recusal; meritless in any event; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re Miscin, 885 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2005) (on appealability of custody orders)
G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (custody orders treated differently for finality and appealability)
V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards of review for custody: broad scope, abuse of discretion, deference to credibility findings)
E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2015) (custody orders require best‑interest analysis under Section 5328)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all Section 5328 factors)
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (extent of Section 5328 analysis required on modification)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no required level of detail in trial court’s explanation so long as factors considered)
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (clarifying when full Section 5328 analysis is required)
S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing discrete ancillary custody issues from full modifications)
M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (similar guidance on scope of Section 5328 requirements)
Chadwick v. Caulfield, 834 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2003) (recusal/recusal motion standards; adverse rulings alone do not establish bias)
Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (adverse trial rulings insufficient to prove judicial bias)