J.L.W. v. K.A.R., now K.A.H.
J.L.W. v. K.A.R., now K.A.H. No. 1401 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Parents never married; child born March 2011; parties separated January 2012 after an on-again/off-again relationship.
- Father (appellant) filed for custody in 2012; initial orders awarded shared legal custody and mother primary physical custody, with gradual expansion of Father’s partial custody.
- Disputed incidents in 2012 (child’s tibial fracture) prompted special-relief proceedings; restrictions on Father were vacated and the special-relief petition dismissed.
- A 2014 custody order imposed a 50/50 week-on/week-off physical custody schedule and shared legal custody; that arrangement continued until early 2016.
- In 2016 both parents sought primary custody because the child was entering kindergarten and they live in different school districts; trial court (after an August 2016 trial) awarded Mother primary physical custody and continued shared legal custody.
- Father appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied or improperly weighed several 23 Pa.C.S. §5328(a) best-interest factors; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding Mother primary custody contrary to §5328(a) evidence | Trial court misweighed factors overall; award against weight of evidence; Father better serves child’s best interests (esp. school choice) | Trial court’s factual findings are supported; both parents fit but certain factors (extended family, step-siblings) favor Mother | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; findings supported by record |
| §5328(a)(5) (availability of extended family) | Father: both families nearby; court overstated Maternal proximity and availability | Mother: maternal grandparents live locally and will provide childcare; testimony supported availability | Trial court’s slight tilt to Mother upheld; record supports maternal availability |
| §5328(a)(6) (child’s sibling relationships) | Father: step-sibling bond overstated; age gaps and limited contact undermine weight | Mother: testimony showed a positive, close bond between child and step-siblings | Court credited trial testimony; factor reasonably weighed for Mother |
| §5328(a)(16) / schooling / step-father credibility | Father: court ignored school-performance evidence favoring Father’s district and failed to address step-father’s prior dishonesty | Mother: principal testimony supported adequacy of Mother’s school; step-father’s past conduct not dispositive | Court heard school testimony and found either district adequate; step-father misconduct would not change outcome; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in custody appeals)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best interest of the child is paramount in custody determinations)
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility or evidence in custody matters)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same principle limiting appellate reweighing of trial-court credibility)