E.E.H. v. C.D.H. Appeal of: E.E.H.
E.E.H. v. C.D.H. Appeal of: E.E.H. No. 426 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 11, 2017Background
- Parents divorced; child born 2008. Trial court had a 2014 custody order giving Mother primary custody and Father certain unsupervised time; disputes continued thereafter.
- After allegations (including a "bowling-pin" incident described by the child) and therapist concerns, Mother petitioned to suspend Father's contact; Children and Youth Services investigated and marked the report unfounded.
- Court-appointed GAL and multiple therapists consistently reported the child was fearful of Father and opposed contact; reunification therapy produced limited progress.
- Father underwent psychological and sex-offender testing; experts diagnosed personality pathology (narcissistic or antisocial traits) and raised concerns that Father lacks empathy and appropriate boundaries.
- After multi-day hearings (Sept 2015, June 2016, Jan 2017) the court found Father’s mental health and the child’s fear made any physical contact detrimental and entered an order awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody and indefinitely suspending Father’s custodial contact (Father may send cards/gifts; review scheduled after child’s 12th birthday).
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 factors in awarding sole custody and suspending contact | Father argued the court improperly weighed statutory factors and failed to justify total suspension | Mother argued statutory factors (especially child preference, mental condition, risk of harm, emotional needs) supported sole custody and suspension | Court upheld: trial court analyzed §5328 factors, gave weight to expert and therapist testimony, and its conclusions were supported by record |
| Whether evidence supported finding that Father’s conduct made child fearful to degree contact would be harmful | Father denied conduct was harmful, contended testing and cultural/language issues undermined evaluations | Mother and experts pointed to child’s fear, therapy reports, and expert diagnoses showing Father’s disorder threatens child’s emotional well‑being | Court upheld: competent evidence (child, therapists, GAL, experts) supported finding child fearful and that contact would be harmful |
| Admissibility/weight of psychological testing (language/cultural concerns) | Father contended tests were inappropriate given language/cultural differences and he didn’t fully understand some instruments | Evaluators testified they accommodated language issues and relied on results; no timely objection by Father at trial | Court: issue waived for lack of trial objection; even if considered, evaluators’ procedures were adequate and court properly relied on results |
| Whether indefinite suspension equates to termination of parental rights or was excessive | Father argued no-contact was too drastic; asked for at least supervised visitation | Mother and experts argued even supervised contact would be detrimental now; court retained ability to revisit as child matures | Court: order is not termination of rights; suspension was the least-restrictive remedy consistent with child’s best interests; review ordered after child turns 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in custody appeals)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate duty to enforce Pa.R.A.P. briefing requirements; nonconforming briefs may be dismissed)
- Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2000) (issues not properly developed or briefed may be waived)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate waiver for inadequately developed arguments)
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant must support issues with reasoned discussion and authority)
- Sawko v. Sawko, 625 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 1993) (best-interest custodial analysis when two parents are involved)
- In re Arnold, 428 A.2d 627 (Pa. Super. 1981) (scope of review in custody disputes is broadest — abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Spriggs v. Carson, 368 A.2d 635 (Pa. 1977) (appellate standard in child custody matters)
- J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 902 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate courts must accept trial court factual findings supported by competent evidence)
- Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deference to trial court on credibility and weight of evidence)
- K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard and custody review principles)