D.W. and D.W. v. F.T. and J.T.
1007 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Maternal grandparents (Grandparents) filed for partial physical custody of three grandchildren in November 2014, about 18 months after the parents separated. Father had primary custody since May 2013; mother had limited supervised visitation.
- The trial court held a custody hearing (Sept. 10, 2015) and initially denied grandparents’ complaint (Nov. 5, 2015); that order was vacated on appeal for failure to analyze all statutory custody factors and remanded.
- On remand the trial court issued a new order (June 6, 2016) again denying grandparents’ request, finding (inter alia) that grandparents had only sporadic contact with the children and that their contact provoked conflict and distress for the children.
- Grandparents appealed; there was a procedural dispute about timeliness of the notice of appeal (initially quashed but later reinstated when evidence showed the notice had been timely filed in the Superior Court).
- The Superior Court reviewed the custody findings for abuse of discretion, considered the statutory best-interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)) and the grandparent-specific factors (§ 5328(c)(1)), and affirmed the trial court’s denial of partial physical custody.
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying any partial physical custody to grandparents | Grandparents argued the court severed ties improperly; they had standing and expressed desire to see grandchildren; conflicts did not threaten children | Parents argued grandparents had minimal contact post-separation and their interactions caused conflict and distress to children | Court held no abuse of discretion: trial court reasonably found sparse contact and that grandparents’ visits caused harmful conflict, so custody denial was in children’s best interests |
| Whether the court misapplied Child Custody Act factors (§ 5328(a) and § 5328(c)(1)) | Grandparents argued the court failed to properly weigh factors and did not require constant contact or amicable parent relationship | Parents pointed to factual findings under many § 5328(a) factors favoring them and § 5328(c)(1) factors supporting denial | Court held it did consider relevant § 5328 factors on remand and its weighing was supported by record; affirmance justified |
| Standing under § 5325(2) (parents separated >6 months) | Grandparents relied on parental separation for standing | Parents did not raise standing; later case law called that standing basis unconstitutional | Court noted D.P. v. G.J.P. invalidated the six‑month separation basis but grandparents also satisfied the alternative ground (dissolution proceeding); standing not disputed and not resolved sua sponte |
| Whether parental/third‑party conflict alone precludes grandparent custody | Grandparents argued hostility alone isn’t dispositive absent harm to children | Parents emphasized evidence of children’s distress from grandparents’ conduct | Court held hostility that causes child distress is a relevant factor; here it supported denying custody |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and role of trial court credibility findings in custody appeals)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best-interests-of-the-child is paramount in custody determinations)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (portion of § 5325(2) granting standing based on six months’ separation violates due process)
- K.T. v. L.R., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2015) (hostility between parties relevant only to extent it affects child’s welfare)
- Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 246 A.2d 859 (Pa. 1968) (avoid deciding constitutional questions when case can be resolved on other grounds)
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (court will not raise standing sua sponte)