J.M.P. v. M.C.K.
J.M.P. v. M.C.K. No. 1680 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 30, 2017Background
- Parents (Father: J.M.P.; Mother: M.C.K.) divorced after 2011; Mother had primary custody while Father exercised liberal partial custody by agreement. Children: three minors (including one then-17).
- Mother remarried; incidents between Mother and step‑father (Step‑Father) occurred in 2014–2015 including an October 2015 confrontation that led to a PFA petition (withdrawn) and a pending false‑imprisonment charge against Step‑Father.
- Father filed a custody complaint (Dec. 22, 2015) seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the children. Court held a criminal‑history / risk‑of‑harm hearing (Feb. 5, 2016) focused on enumerated convictions under 23 Pa.C.S. §5329 and later custody hearings (June–July 2016) with in‑camera interviews of the children.
- Trial court found Step‑Father did not pose a current risk of harm, granted shared legal custody, awarded primary physical custody to Mother, and set a partial physical custody schedule for Father; Father appealed.
- On appeal, Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings and application of the Child Custody Act factors (23 Pa.C.S. §5328) and the risk‑of‑harm procedures (§5329/§5330).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in finding Step‑Father not a risk of harm | Step‑Father has extensive prior abusive/criminal history and pending false‑imprisonment charge; court should find risk of harm | Evidence showed past incidents were either resolved, not directed at the children, or resulted in non‑convictions; no ongoing risk to children | Court affirmed: trial court’s factual finding that Step‑Father did not pose current risk of harm is supported by record and credibility findings were for trial court to make |
| Whether court improperly excluded testimony / should have stayed hearings pending criminal resolution | Trial court should have admitted evidence of non‑enumerated or pending offenses and stayed hearings until criminal matters were resolved | Risk‑of‑harm hearing appropriately addressed enumerated convictions under §5329; pending charges/non‑convictions and withdrawn PFA did not mandate stay; Father could have sought supplemental proceedings if status changed | Court affirmed: trial court properly limited §5329 inquiry to enumerated convictions, Father waived other inquiry by failing to develop it at custody hearing or move for supplemental hearing; no stay required |
| Whether trial court erred by awarding primary physical custody to Mother instead of shared physical custody | Many §5328 factors are essentially equal; record supports shared physical custody | Mother's schedule, stronger bond with children, and need for continuity/stability favored primary physical custody with Mother; high inter‑parental conflict counseled against shared physical custody | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably weighed §5328 factors, prioritized stability and children’s best interests, and did not abuse discretion in denying shared physical custody |
Key Cases Cited
- S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate scope in custody appeals: accept trial court factual findings, review for abuse of discretion)
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (deference to trial court on credibility and custody decisions when best‑interest analysis is thorough)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Child Custody Act applies to custody disputes filed after the Act’s effective date)
- Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163 (Pa. 1993) (paramount concern in custody proceedings is the best interest of the child)
- Sawko v. Sawka, 625 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 1993) (no presumption for awarding custody to a particular parent; best interest requires individualized assessment)