D.B. v. J.B., 1029 MDA 2017

Father (J.B.) entered an Alford plea in New York to endangering the welfare of a child after an incident in 2012 where Mother witnessed alleged sexual contact between Father and youngest child M.B.; Father received a one‑year conditional discharge with counseling and testing conditions.
Supervised visitation resumed; custody remained with Mother. Concerns arose during supervised visits (children reported being made uncomfortable by "special time," lap‑sitting, wrestling, trying on bathing suits) and Father tested positive for cocaine in January 2014.
New York court reduced and modified visitation in February 2014 based on supervisor concerns; additional allegations prompted Lackawanna County (PA) CYS investigation and emergency custody proceedings in April–May 2015, resulting in no contact order for Father.
Father filed a petition to modify custody in November 2015; hearings were held in 2017 with testimony from the GAL, the supervisor, Mother, and Father; trial court denied modification and barred all contact on May 26, 2017.
Trial court based decision on best‑interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328), emphasizing child safety: the underlying sexual‑abuse facts (as reflected in the Alford plea and related evidence), ongoing inappropriate conduct during supervised visits, substance use, and violations of court orders.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supported denial of Father’s petition to modify custody and complete bar on contact	Record lacks competent evidence that Father poses a grave threat; trial findings are unsupported	Trial court’s findings are supported by children’s testimony, GAL, supervisor, and other evidence showing continued inappropriate conduct and risk	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports denial and no‑contact order (best interests/safety weigh for Mother)
Whether Father’s Alford plea constituted a judicial admission of intentional sexual assault justifying no contact	Alford plea did not admit underlying facts; stipulation allowed visits after plea so court should permit contact	Plea and surrounding evidence (children’s accounts, visitation behavior, positive drug test) may be weighed by court in best‑interest analysis	Court may weigh plea and other evidence; even without treating plea as conclusive admission, denial supported by broader record

Commonwealth v. Snavely, 982 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2009) (explains Alford plea and its legal effect)
R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for custody factual findings and discretion)
Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate review limits on reweighing credibility)
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best‑interest standard and custody review)
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best‑interests factors overview)
Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (best‑interests standard discussion)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirement to consider all §5328 factors)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency of trial court’s explanation under §5323(d))
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (test whether record supports trial court conclusions)
Robinson v. Robinson, 645 A.2d 836 (Pa. 1994) (trial court’s paramount concern is child’s best interest)