B.B. v. L.Z.
B.B. v. L.Z. No. 1983 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- Custody dispute between Father (B.B.) and Mother (L.Z.) concerning their daughter (born ~2009); case transferred from York to Cumberland County; multiple hearings and a custody evaluator were involved.
- Initial Parenting Plan issued August 2, 2016; Father filed an Emergency Petition on August 24, 2016 after discovering Mother’s boyfriend’s arrest and alleging drug abuse and domestic violence in Mother’s household.
- Trial court temporarily modified the plan on September 9, 2016 (granting Father full-time custody with supervised Mother custody) and scheduled further hearing to address mother’s health and school relocation issues; Mother’s interlocutory appeal was later discontinued.
- Final amended Parenting Plan entered November 9, 2016 after additional proceedings; Father appealed, raising 21 issues challenging time limits, consideration of relocation factors, the trial court’s custody-factor analysis, and the court’s treatment of evidence (including expert reports and alleged drug/domestic-violence concerns).
- Trial court exercised its discretion to limit each side’s witness presentation time, evaluated custody and relocation factors (23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5328, 5337), and found the November 9 parenting plan was in the child’s best interests; Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time limit on witness testimony | Limiting each side (~70–75 min) deprived Father of ability to call/ cross-examine witnesses and present rebuttal | Time limits were a permissible management tool to control proceedings | Court upheld the time limits as a valid exercise of discretion (no abuse) |
| Consideration of relocation factors | Trial court erred by applying relocation factors when Father’s move was not a distant relocation and question was legal custody/school change | Trial court properly evaluated relocation factors because Father sought primary custody that would affect the child’s school district | Court held relocation factors were properly considered because custody change implicated school/residency issues |
| Custody/relocation-factor analysis | Trial court failed to analyze or explain how statutory factors led to its conclusions; ignored evaluator and experts favoring Father | Trial court reviewed and weighed custody and relocation factors, explained reasoning in its opinion | Court found the trial court’s review reasonable and deferred to its factual findings and discretion |
| Failure to credit Father’s evidence (drug/domestic violence/expert reports) | Court ignored evidence of mother’s household drug use, domestic violence, and expert recommendations favoring Father | Trial court considered reports, testimony, and credibility; concluded evidence did not require altering the final plan and prioritized child’s stability (school continuity) | Court concluded trial court did not abuse discretion in crediting evidence and assessing credibility; affirmed order |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (appellate admonition about overlong multi-point briefs and waiver)
- S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (best-interest standard in custody/relocation matters)
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody appeals; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (scope/standard of review for custody matters)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (importance of deference to trial court in custody cases)
- Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial-court observation of witnesses cannot be replicated on appeal)
- Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- ABG Promotions v. Parkway Publ’g, Inc., 834 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse of discretion standards)