Gottschall, J. v. Woodley, K., 81 MDA 2026

Background

Father appealed a December 23, 2025 custody order that gave Mother primary physical custody, shared legal custody, and Father only supervised two-hour visitation every other Saturday. 1
Before the custody trial, Mother obtained a final PFA order after a contested hearing in which the court made a specific finding of abuse against Father. 2
A Kayden’s Law hearing resulted in orders requiring all Father-child visitation to be supervised and approving Mother’s sister and Father’s friend as supervisors. 3
At trial, Mother and supervisor Ms. Snyder testified to Father’s prior violent, erratic, and substance-related behavior, while Father relied on his own and Mr. Horning’s testimony. 4
The Superior Court held that many of Father’s appellate issues were waived for briefing and preservation defects and then reviewed the custody order only for abuse of discretion. 5
The court affirmed, concluding the custody decision was supported by the record and that Father’s bias and supervision challenges lacked merit. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Father’s abuse and custody findings unsupported? 7	Father said the court relied on old PFA findings and hearsay, not current proof.	Mother argued the record showed abuse, safety concerns, and credible testimony supporting supervision.	No; the court relied on competent evidence and did not abuse discretion. 8
Was Father entitled to more custodial time? 9	Father said his supervised visitation history was positive and incident-free.	Mother said Father’s behavior justified limiting visitation for the Child’s safety.	No; the court reasonably reduced Father’s custodial time. 10
Did the court err in choosing Ms. Snyder as supervisor? 11	Father claimed Ms. Snyder was biased because she was Mother’s sister.	Mother argued Mr. Horning was not neutral or credible and Ms. Snyder was appropriate.	No; credibility and supervisor selection were for the trial court. 12
Did the court show bias by using emotional language? 13	Father said the court relied on fear and bias rather than facts.	Mother argued the court properly explained its safety-based custody reasoning on the record.	No; the court merely stated its reasons and Father proved no bias. 14
Were Father’s other claims waived or outside the appeal? 15	Father sought review of additional post-appeal rulings and supplemental issues.	Mother argued the issues were waived, undeveloped, or not properly before the court.	Yes; most claims were waived, and post-appeal rulings were not reviewable here. 16

Key Cases Cited

B.S.G. v. D.M.C., 255 A.3d 528 (Pa. Super. 2021) (undeveloped appellate arguments may be deemed waived 17)
In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2017) (issues omitted from the concise statement or questions involved are waived 18)
Bishops, Inc. v. Penn National Insurance, 984 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 2009) (reply briefs may not raise new issues 19)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (an appellant may not raise new issues in a reply brief 20)
Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2018) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate rules 21)
Interest of R.H., 320 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2024) (an appellate court will not develop arguments for a party 22)
Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2018) (an appellate court will not scour the record to support an appellant’s claim 23)
Krieg v. Krieg, 743 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1999) (a recusal motion is reviewed only after an underlying action is filed and decided 24)
Wilson v. Smyers, 284 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2022) (custody review is for abuse of discretion and appellate courts defer to credibility findings 25)
White v. Malecki, 296 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2023) (the record may support a different custody outcome without requiring reversal 26)
Carrero v. Lopez, 300 A.3d 494 (Pa. Super. 2023) (the mere possibility of a different custody result is not enough to reverse 27)
A.L.B. v. M.D.L., 239 A.3d 142 (Pa. Super. 2020) (the child’s best interests are paramount in custody matters 28)
Velasquez v. Miranda, 321 A.3d 876 (Pa. 2024) (Kayden’s Law expanded custody best-interest factors and emphasized child safety 29)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (the court must consider the custody factors and state reasons, but not in great detail 30)