C.S. v. J.B. v. C.J.B. and R.A.B., C.S. v. J.B. v. C.J.B. and R.A.B. No. 1534 WDA 2016

Mother (C.S.) sought de novo custody trial seeking primary physical custody of her daughter K.M.B., born 2008; paternal grandparents (C.J.B. and R.A.B.) were intervenors already sharing weekly physical custody with Mother under a December 22, 2015 order.
Mother has a criminal history: convicted of involuntary manslaughter after the death of her infant son in 2009 and served prison time; she was paroled in 2012 and completed CYS services in 2013.
Father did not participate in the custody trial and has a history of instability (homelessness, substance issues, aggressive conduct toward grandparents).
The child expressed a clear, mature preference to maintain the status quo—shared weekly custody with both Mother and paternal grandparents, who have been the child’s constant caregivers.
Trial court concluded clear and convincing evidence did not support awarding primary custody to Mother and found shared legal and physical custody with paternal grandmother served the child’s best interests.
Mother appealed arguing the statutory presumption favoring a parent over a nonparent (23 Pa.C.S. § 5327(b)) and the constitutional presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests were not properly applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court failed to apply parental presumption against a third party	Mother: parental presumption requires custody to parent unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; court erred by focusing on best interests	Grandparents/Trial Court: best-interests analysis (including child preference and grandparents’ long-term care) can outweigh parental presumption without showing unfitness	Court: Affirmed — parental presumption applies but may be overcome by best-interest factors; here trial court reasonably found those factors rebutted the presumption and maintained shared custody
Whether the trial court abused discretion in weighing child preference and other §5328 factors	Mother: court improperly discounted parental rights and mother’s fitness	Trial Court: child’s well-reasoned preference, grandparents’ consistent care, and Mother’s past conduct justified status quo	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court gave appropriate weight to child’s preference and other factors

E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in custody appeals)
A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (custody appeal review standards)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in custody receives high deference)
Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court advantage in observing witnesses in custody cases)
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best-interest standard overview)
Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (best-interests factors in custody determinations)
Charles v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2000) (parental presumption against third parties exists but best-interest factors can justify award to nonparent)
D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (reaffirming parental presumption remains good law)
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (parents presumptively fit and make decisions in child’s best interests)