C.A.J. v. D.S.M.
136 A.3d 504
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parents (Mother C.A.J. and Father D.S.M.) share one child born 2012; a 2013 custody order gave Mother primary physical custody with alternating schedules in summer.
- Father filed a pro se petition for contempt (Feb 2015) alleging Mother denied his custodial time and requesting primary custody.
- Court ordered a pre-hearing custody conciliation; parties attended (unrepresented) and were notified custody issues would be discussed; they requested a full hearing when conciliation failed.
- At the June 24, 2015 hearing both parties testified that in practice they already shared time roughly equally; Father sought a two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off schedule; testimony included Father’s girlfriend living with him and her children.
- On June 25, 2015 the trial court modified the 2013 order and entered a shared physical custody two-week rotation, accompanied by a short written explanation referencing several but not all § 5328(a) best-interest factors.
- Mother appealed arguing (1) custody was modified without a formal petition to modify and (2) the court failed to analyze all § 5328(a) factors and adequately explain its reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by modifying custody at a contempt proceeding without a formal petition to modify | Modification was improper because Father filed only a contempt petition and Section 5338 / Pa.R.C.P.1915.15 require a petition to modify | Court and Father argued the contempt petition sought custody and parties had notice custody would be at issue (conciliation order, hearing notice) | Court held modification was permissible because Father’s petition sought custody and Mother had adequate notice that custody would be litigated |
| Whether trial court failed to consider and explain all § 5328(a) best-interest factors | Court’s explanation was cursory and omitted several statutory factors and in-depth analysis, violating § 5323 and § 5328 | Court provided a numbered list addressing several factors and relied on hearing evidence | Court vacated the custody order and remanded, finding the trial court erred by not addressing all § 5328(a) factors with adequate analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Guadagnino v. Montie, 646 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Super. 1994) (courts may modify custody at non-modification proceedings when parties have notice and custody was raised)
- Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (modification at contempt hearing improper when parties lacked notice custody was at issue)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (adequate notice can permit modification even where pleading title differs; court must still explain § 5328 analysis)
- C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (mere recitation of statute/factors is insufficient; court must apply and explain § 5328 factors)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (listing factors without applying them is error)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court must consider all § 5328(a) factors when awarding custody)
- Choplosky v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 1990) (general notice requirements must be observed when modifying custody at contempt proceedings)
- Seger v. Seger, 547 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 1988) (trial court lacks authority to modify custody absent a petition for modification unless notice/other conditions met)