B.J.F. v. J.P.F.
B.J.F. v. J.P.F. No. 1543 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- Child born 2004; parents separated 2012. Mother (B.J.F., now B.J.S.) lives in Lancaster County with new husband and younger son; Father (J.P.F.) lives in York County with his girlfriend. Parties ~52 miles apart.
- October 2, 2015 custody order: shared legal custody; Father awarded primary physical custody during the school year; Mother has partial physical custody (specified weekends); alternating-week summer schedule.
- Mother appealed the October 2015 order (affirmed by this Court in an unpublished memorandum) and later filed a petition to modify custody on May 6, 2016 seeking primary physical custody during the school year based largely on Child’s stated preference.
- Parties agreed the only changed circumstance was Child’s preference; court interviewed Child on August 11, 2016 and denied Mother’s modification petition on August 19, 2016, maintaining Father’s primary custody during the school year.
- Trial court emphasized Child’s stability in Father’s school district, academic success, extracurriculars, friendships, and the disruptive effect of changing schools; Child expressed he wanted to attend school at Mother’s to maximize time with both parents and see his half-brother.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Child’s well-reasoned preference to live primarily with Mother during the school year should control modification | Child (age 12) prefers to live with Mother during school; Mother argues both homes are suitable so preference should tip custody to her | Preference is only one factor; stability in Father’s district and Child’s success favor keeping Father as primary custodial parent | Court rejected altering custody based on preference alone; upheld Father’s primary custody during school year |
| Whether court erred by misstating Child’s age (11 v. 12) and thus undervaluing preference | Mother: trial court misunderstood Child’s age and gave insufficient weight to a 12‑year‑old’s preference | Father: age discrepancy does not change analysis; preference weighed with other factors | Court’s decision not disturbed; age misstatement did not render analysis erroneous or unreasonable |
| Whether trial court failed to incorporate its October 2, 2015 findings with the child’s new preference | Mother: prior findings and preference together require modification | Father: prior findings support maintaining status quo; preference does not overcome factors favoring Father | Court expressly incorporated prior Section 5328(a) findings and reweighed factors, properly declining modification |
| Whether denial of modification was unreasonable/abuse of discretion given the record | Mother: conclusions unreasonable because preference and home suitability favor Mother | Father: record shows Child thriving in Father’s district; stability outweighs preference | Appellate court held trial court did not abuse discretion; conclusions reasonable and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for custody appeals and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best interest of the child is paramount in custody determinations)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court decides which Section 5328 factors are most salient)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (weight given to individual best‑interest factors rests with trial court)
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (relocation considerations and relevance of stability when child may move significant distance)
- B.J.F. v. J.P.F., 145 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior appeal affirming October 2, 2015 custody order)