J.C. v. J.W.
1104 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother J.C. and Father) never married; child born Dec. 2012; lived together until Sept. 2013; shared legal and physical custody under a May 26, 2016 stipulation with an alternating-weekend/weekday rotation.
- Mother filed a petition to modify custody (Aug. 4, 2016) seeking primary physical custody, alleging Father made negative comments about her to the child, was difficult to communicate with, engaged in confrontations in front of the child, and had previously physically assaulted Mother.
- Custody hearing held March 20 and 23, 2017. Trial court found past abuse by Father against Mother credible but concluded there was no current threat to Mother or child; it found some custody factors favored Mother (§ 5328(a)(2), (8), (13)) but overall awarded continued shared physical custody to preserve stability and consistent time with both parents.
- Trial court ordered co-parenting counseling for the parties, anger management for Father, and daily phone contact for the noncustodial parent; Mother appealed.
- Superior Court reversed only the portion of the order requiring joint co-parenting counseling (holding § 5333(b) forbids joint counseling in situations involving abuse) and otherwise affirmed the denial of modification and maintenance of shared custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether parents lacked minimal cooperation to sustain shared physical custody | Mother: High conflict and Father's hostility/insults prevent minimal cooperation; Wiseman requires minimal cooperation for shared custody | Trial court: Post-petition behavior improved; parties demonstrate minimal cooperation; Wiseman factors subsumed by § 5328(a) | Affirmed — court may consider § 5328(a) factors; minimal cooperation not dispositive; record supports shared custody |
| 2. Whether ordering joint co-parenting counseling was improper given past abuse | Mother: Joint counseling in abuse situations risks further harm and implies shared fault; prior counseling was futile | Trial court: No current risk; past abuse acknowledged but professional should decide duration; counseling benefits child | Reversed — statutory § 5333(b) prohibits ordering joint counseling where abuse occurred; court may order individual counseling for abuser |
| 3. Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding shared custody despite some § 5328(a) factors favoring Mother | Mother: Factors (a)(2),(8),(13) favored her and should have led to primary custody | Trial court: Must weigh all § 5328 factors; other factors (love, parental competence, child stability, consistent time) supported shared custody; no safety risk to child found | Affirmed — no single factor controls; trial court’s holistic weighing reasonable |
| 4. Whether primary-caretaker doctrine or daycare intimidation required awarding Mother primary custody | Mother: She was primary caretaker and Father intimidated daycare providers; trial court failed full inquiry | Trial court: Primary-caretaker doctrine is not controlling under current statute; parental duties already considered under § 5328 factors; record supports shared duties now | Affirmed — primary-caretaker doctrine subsumed by § 5328; court adequately considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998) (four-factor test historically applied to shared custody awards)
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for custody appeals; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best interest of the child standard governs custody awards)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (§ 5328(a) requires courts to consider all enumerated factors; no single factor controls)
- R.S. v. T.T., 113 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting Wiseman factors applied in at least one post‑statute case)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (custody trial court discretion requires appellate deference)
- Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s advantage in observing witness testimony in custody cases)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court will not reverse where record supports trial court’s discretionary custody decision)