A.L.-S. v. B.S.
A.L.-S. v. B.S. No. 532 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Parents (both physicians) litigated custody of two sons: W. (nonverbal, moderate–severe autism) and C. (younger, developing typically). Prior Ohio custody proceedings produced a November 1, 2013 order allocating decision-making to Father for education/medical matters.
- Mother filed to register/modify the Ohio order in Lawrence County, PA; parties proceeded to a nine‑day custody trial in late 2015–early 2016.
- Trial court found high parental conflict, Mother’s repeated emergency interventions, frequent referrals to police/Children & Youth (mostly unfounded), and Mother’s disruptive conduct at school and toward providers.
- Court emphasized W.’s special needs (IEP, MIU4 classroom) and need for coordinated care; differences in the boys’ needs led to divergent custody recommendations.
- Court awarded Father sole legal custody, primary physical custody of C., and shared/alternate-week physical custody of W.; Mother appealed challenging custody allocation and several evidentiary/ procedure rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Physical custody of C. | Award to Mother would better serve C.’s best interests | Trial court's award to Father best serves C.’s need for stability and less conflict | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings and best‑interest analysis supported award to Father |
| 2. Legal custody (sole vs shared) | Mother should have sole or shared legal custody; Father’s decisions harmed children | Father should have sole legal custody due to Mother’s conduct and inability to cooperate | Affirmed: court properly found sole legal custody for Father given high conflict and Mother’s disruptive conduct |
| 3. Separation of siblings | Court improperly divided siblings; no evidence supporting separation | Different needs of W. and C. justify different schedules; Johns policy not controlling | Affirmed: sibling‑together policy is a factor but not dispositive; court may separate when individual best interests differ |
| 4. Psychological exams and Dr. Rosenberg testimony | Court erred by denying Mother's requested psych exam and admitting stale diagnosis about Mother | Court permissibly exercised discretion to deny new exams and admitted Dr. Rosenberg for impeachment/ background | Affirmed: denial of exam within court’s discretion; testimony admissible and weight for fact‑finder |
| 5. Our Family Wizard (OFW) review | Court should have reviewed entire OFW record to show Father’s communication failures | Parties must present and identify material communications; court not required to comb OFW | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; it admitted many OFW exhibits and parties bore burden to present evidence |
| 6. Hearsay in medical records | Court relied on inadmissible hearsay in medical records | Any reference was harmless and did not affect outcome | Affirmed: any hearsay references were harmless error or not outcome‑determinative |
| 7. Use of CYS reports / reporter identity | Court improperly attributed CYS reports to Mother despite statutory confidentiality | Court relied on admissible evidence and reasonable inferences; did not identify confidential reporters | Affirmed: court did not err in referencing events or drawing inferences; source identity remained protected |
| 8. Reliance on GAL report | GAL (lay attorney) exceeded role, opined on ultimate issues and relied on hearsay | GAL conducted extensive investigation; court independently analyzed best‑interest factors and did not abdicate its role | Affirmed: court properly considered GAL recommendations without improperly delegating judicial power |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 421 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 1980) (extreme sanction of dismissal for procedural violations should be imposed sparingly)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate scope in custody: defer to trial court on credibility and best‑interest findings)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in custody matters merits utmost respect)
- W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2015) (best‑interest factors required under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all best‑interest factors)
- Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004) (policy favors keeping siblings together, but it is not controlling)
- Jordan v. Jackson, 876 A.2d 443 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court has discretion whether to order psychological evaluations)
- R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2013) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (not all trial errors require reversal—complaining party must show harmful error)
- In re M.T., 607 A.2d 271 (Pa. Super. 1992) (harmless‑error analysis for admission of hearsay)
- C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2001) (court may not delegate judicial power to guardian ad litem)
- Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (rejects improper delegation when trial court retains independent decision‑making)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility or disturb trial court findings)