C.B. v. J.B.
65 A.3d 946
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Aunt seeks primary physical custody of G.B. and K.B. after guardianship with Uncle since 2007.
- Trial court awarded Uncle primary custody Oct 24, 2011, with Aunt receiving partial custody periods.
- Act became effective Jan 2011; sixteen custody factors in 5328(a) guide best interests.
- Trial court discussed some factors on the record and provided 1925(a) findings/explanation later.
- Aunt appeals, arguing the court failed to address all 5328(a) factors before the appeal deadline and that 5323(d) requires contemporaneous delineation of reasons.
- Court holds 5323(d) requires delineation of reasons prior to appeal deadline; decision applies prospectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of delineating reasons under 5323(d) | Aunt argues court must address all 5328(a) factors before filing appeal. | Uncle contends substantial compliance with act suffices; timing not explicit. | Requires reasons before appeal deadline; prospectively applied. |
| Preference for Uncle based on kinship | Aunt asserts improper reliance on biology; equal consideration warranted. | Court properly weighed factors including kinship and language barrier. | No abuse; factors supported decision; no dispositive reliance on biology alone. |
| Nationality/communication and equal protection | Aunt argues discrimination based on nationality/English ability. | Court did not treat nationality/English ability as dispositive; consideration of barriers was contextual. | Unpersuasive; no equal protection violation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coble v. Coble, 470 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Super. 1984) (pre-Act requirement for comprehensive appellate opinion)
- In re Adoption of J.A.S., 939 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory interpretation framework)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirement to address best-interest factors for appellate review)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (timing of §5323(d) rationale affecting appeal)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (practice of contemporaneous rationale and factor consideration)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all §5328(a) factors must be considered when issuing custody order)
- C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explanation of §5323(d) and §5328(a) interplay)