G.A. v. J.S.
860 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Parents (never married) share a daughter born 7/25/2005; Father filed initial custody petition in 2006 and a modification in 2009; after multiple evaluations and 16 hearings, the trial court modified custody in 2016.
- Prior orders provided shared custody (2008); the trial court ultimately awarded Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody during the school year, with Father partial weekend custody.
- Custody evaluators and multiple parent-coordinators described the case as high-conflict and testified that Father repeatedly refused to accept decisions, was argumentative, and engaged in conduct (late drop-offs, excessive calls, occasional verbal/physical incidents) that disrupted Mother and the child.
- Trial court found Father’s conduct dilatory, repetitive, obdurate, and vexatious; it ordered Father to pay $73,150 in counsel fees to Mother.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the custody award was an abuse of discretion based on alleged evaluator/parent-coordinator bias and Mother’s misconduct, and (2) the attorney-fee award was improper, excessive, and based on Father’s ability to pay rather than statutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding sole legal custody to Mother was an abuse of discretion | Father: trial court improperly credited Mother, ignored her misconduct, and overemphasized Father’s conduct | Trial court: considered §5328 factors, found Father’s pattern of obstruction, conflict, and emotional conduct harmful to child | Affirmed — trial court’s credibility findings and §5328 analysis were supported by record |
| Whether awarding primary physical custody to Mother was an abuse of discretion | Father: award not supported by the evidence and reweighs factors | Trial court: primary physical custody serves child’s best interests given conflict, stability, and Father’s behavior | Affirmed — custody decision not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding $73,150 in counsel fees under 23 Pa.C.S. §5339 | Father: his filings were legitimate, not vexatious; fee award penalized his ability to pay; Mother’s conduct also vexatious | Trial court: Father’s repetitive petitions, obstruction of parent-coordinator process, and dilatory conduct justified an award | Affirmed — record supports finding Father’s conduct was obdurate and vexatious and fee award was within discretion |
| Whether Mother’s alleged misconduct negated Father’s conduct for fee/custody purposes | Father: Mother fabricated allegations and provoked filings | Trial court: Mother’s conduct did not negate Father’s persistent obstruction and repetitive litigation | Rejected — Father’s behavior independently supported custody and fee findings |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody appeals; accept trial court factual findings)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court’s observational advantage in custody matters warrants deference)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (best-interests standard under the Child Custody Act)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all §5328(a) factors)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition and application of obdurate/vexatious conduct for fee awards)
- Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 2000) (attorney-fee awards under conduct statutes reviewed for abuse of discretion)