J.J.M. v. D.H.M., J.J.M. v. D.H.M. No. 1409 MDA 2016

Background

Mother (D.H.M.) and Father (J.J.M.) share a daughter born August 2013; an agreed custody order (Jan. 15, 2015) provided alternating shared legal and physical custody every 2–3 days.
A Protection From Abuse (PFA) order issued March 2, 2016, restricting Father’s contact with Mother except limited texts about the child and directing paternal grandmother to handle custody exchanges; it required Father to attend anger management and domestic violence classes.
Mother filed to modify custody (Mar. 8, 2016), seeking sole legal and primary physical custody and supervised partial physical custody for Father; she cited parenting disagreements, Father’s alleged germaphobia and anger, and medical decision disputes.
The trial court held hearings (Apr. 20 and Jun. 17, 2016), heard testimony from both parents, the child’s pediatrician, relatives, and family friends, and found ongoing conflict but that the PFA arrangement and paternal-grandmother exchanges were working.
The trial court denied Mother’s petition (July 26, 2016), left the Jan. 15, 2015 custody order largely intact (striking provisions inconsistent with the PFA), and concluded shared custody served the child’s best interests, emphasizing stability and continuity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by retaining shared legal and physical custody instead of awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody	Mother: Father cannot sustain a minimal degree of cooperation; thus shared custody is inappropriate	Father: The PFA and exchange arrangement allow necessary communication; Father has taken steps (classes) and poses no threat to child’s welfare	Court: Affirmed shared custody; trial court properly considered Section 5328 factors and found stability/continuity favored keeping the existing schedule
Whether courts must consider four pre-Act factors before Section 5328 analysis	Mother: Trial courts must consider fitness, parental desire, child’s recognition of both parents, and minimal cooperation before best-interest analysis	Court/Defendant: Those considerations are subsumed in Section 5328; no prerequisite treatment required post-Act	Court: Rejected Mother; Act controls—Section 5328 factors govern and incorporate the prior four-factor concerns (esp. cooperation under §5328(a)(13))
Whether lack of direct parent-to-parent communication (all contact via third parties) requires denial of shared custody	Mother: No communication since PFA; thus no minimal cooperation	Father: Limited, child-focused communication via PFA suffices; exchanges via grandmother work and no evidence of health emergencies requiring direct contact	Court: Rejected Mother; no testimony showed a need for direct contact since PFA; the PFA arrangement provided minimal cooperation needed for best interest
Weight of Father’s alleged mental/behavioral issues (germaphobia, anger) in custody decision	Mother: Father’s behaviors endanger child’s development and evidence inability to parent appropriately	Father: Father attentive to child’s health; classes show improvement; not a threat to child	Court: Found these concerns favored Mother under §5328(a)(15) but not dispositive; Father’s participation in classes and lack of threat meant shared custody remained appropriate

Key Cases Cited

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for custody appeals and deference to trial court credibility findings)
Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate review scope for custody factfinding)
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best-interest standard and appellate review in custody matters)
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (description of best-interests standard)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all §5328 factors)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (test for record support of custody conclusions)
R.S. v. T.T., 113 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussion of shared custody factors under the post-Act framework)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (primary caretaker and pre-Act presumptions subsumed into §5328 factors)
Johnson v. Lewis, 870 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super. 2005) (evidence of basic cooperation supports shared custody)
Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998) (lack of communication/cooperation may defeat shared custody)
K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2015) (hostilities relevant only insofar as they threaten child’s welfare)
Nancy E.M. v. Kenneth D.M., 462 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Super. 1983) (hostilities’ relevance to custody focused on child’s welfare)