D.M. v. J.M. & A.M. & S.H.
D.M. v. J.M. & A.M. & S.H. No. 1906 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- In 2012 Mother attempted to suffocate the then-infant Child; she pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and has had no contact with Child since.
- From infancy Child lived with Paternal Grandparents; Father moved Child in 2014 to his home with his fiancée, after which CYS investigated and Father (and fiancée) were indicated for neglect/failure to thrive and Child was returned to Paternal Grandparents.
- Father filed a custody petition in February 2016. A March 2016 interim order granted supervised Saturday visits and telephone contact for Father.
- At a September 2016 custody hearing evidence included CYS testimony about the 2014 failure-to-thrive concern, testimony that Child is bonded to Paternal Grandparents (who are primary caregivers), and testimony about Father’s limited visitation, health issues, and caregiving of his other child (Sibling).
- The trial court (October 19, 2016) awarded shared legal custody to Father and Paternal Grandparents, primary physical custody to Paternal Grandparents, and a graduated schedule of partial/overnight custody for Father designed to transition Child to Father over time.
- Father appealed claiming the trial court erred and abused its discretion by not awarding him primary physical custody and by separating Child from his half‑sibling without compelling reasons; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Paternal Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody to grandparents rather than Father (best‑interests analysis) | Father: court’s factual findings favored him (capable parent); grandparents failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that primary custody with them is in Child’s best interests. | Grandparents: Child has been safe and thriving in their care; continuity/stability and CYS history favor a gradual transition, not immediate transfer. | Court: Affirmed—trial court reasonably weighed Section 5328 factors, prioritized Child’s stability, and permissibly structured a gradual transition to Father. |
| Whether separating Child from his half‑sibling (who lives with Father) lacked compelling reasons | Father: no compelling reason to keep siblings in different households; grandparents impeded father‑child bonding. | Grandparents: Sibling never had safety/weight concerns; maintaining Child’s stability with grandparents is in Child’s best interest; transition should be slow. | Court: Affirmed—trial court reasonably concluded stability in grandparents’ home and a slow transition served Child’s best interests despite sibling living with Father. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate standard in custody review; deference to trial court findings)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court must consider Section 5328 factors; appellate review not bound to court’s inferences)
- M.G. v. L.D., 155 A.3d 1083 (Pa. Super. 2017) (best‑interests standard and factors affecting child’s wellbeing)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (respect for trial court discretion in custody matters based on live witness observations)
- M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition and limits of abuse‑of‑discretion review in custody cases)