J.M. v. T.C.M.
J.M. v. T.C.M. No. 745 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother J.M. and Father T.C.M.) disputed custody of three children born 2000, 2003, and 2006; trial court awarded Mother primary physical custody during the school year and shared legal custody, with shared physical custody in summer. Father received partial physical custody during the school year.
- Trial court issued Findings of Fact addressing all 17 best-interest factors in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) and entered a written custody order on January 26, 2017. A later Rule 1925(a) opinion further explained the court’s reasoning.
- Father appealed, filing a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement raising 18 issues; he framed four principal challenges on appeal: (1) abuse of discretion in awarding Mother primary custody; (2) improper application of best-interest factors; (3) denial of opportunity to participate in children’s daily lives; and (4) arbitrary schedule limiting time children spend together with Father during school year.
- The trial court relied on the children’s expressed preferences, stability/continuity concerns (school year), parental roles, and other § 5328 factors to justify an unconventional schedule (different custodial times for each child) that favored Mother during the school year but provided equal/shared time in summer.
- The Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, deferring to the trial court on credibility and weight of evidence and concluded the trial court carefully and thoroughly considered the best-interest factors and did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court abused discretion and erred in weighing best-interest factors by awarding Mother primary custody | Trial court found both parents capable of primary custody yet awarded Mother primary custody; findings were biased (favoring Mother, critical of Father’s profession) | Trial court properly weighed § 5328 factors and made credibility determinations supported by the record | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; findings supported by evidence and proper consideration of factors |
| 2. Whether best-interest factors were properly applied | Father argued he is available, involved, wanted custody, and trial court undervalued his role and evidence rebutting alcohol concerns; current schedule gives him only one overnight per week with all children | Court considered children’s preferences, stability in school year, household roles, and other § 5328 factors in depth | Affirmed — court’s application was careful and thorough; no reason to disturb weight/credibility determinations |
| 3. Whether Father was denied opportunity to participate in children’s daily lives | Father contended trial court punished him for working as a surgeon by emphasizing household duties and limited school-year custody despite his involvement | Court found Mother performed majority of household duties and children preferred stability with Mother during school year; court’s findings recognized Father’s involvement but still favored Mother for primary custody during school year | Affirmed — findings that Mother provided greater day-to-day stability were reasonable and supported the custody allocation |
| 4. Whether custody schedule was arbitrary for limiting time children are together with Father during school year | Father argued the schedule was arbitrary and disproportionate given proximity to children’s school and that a more balanced shared custody was appropriate | Court credited children’s articulated preferences for differing schedules and tailored an unconventional custody plan to their individual needs, with equal/shared time in summer | Affirmed — unconventional schedule was not arbitrary and was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- M.G. v. L.D., 155 A.3d 1083 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for custody orders is abuse of discretion)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate deference to trial court on credibility and weight; scope of review explained)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in custody matters merits utmost respect)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (court will not reweigh credibility determinations of trial court)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all § 5328 best-interest factors)