History
  • No items yet
midpage
J.P.W., Jr. v. A.N.H.
191 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 24, 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Child A.J.W., born Nov. 2010, has been the subject of protracted, contentious custody litigation between Mother (A.N.H.) and Father (J.P.W., Jr.).
  • Trial court entered a final custody order on March 25, 2014: sole legal custody to Father; shared physical custody.
  • Mother repeatedly challenged medical findings, asserting the child was autistic/developmentally delayed despite medical testimony to the contrary; the court found her statements harmful and entered a cease-and-desist and contempt findings affirmed on appeal.
  • Mother filed a Petition for Modification less than two years after the 2014 order, asserting no change in circumstances and asking to restore her legal custody and an equal shared schedule.
  • Trial court denied and dismissed the modification petition without a hearing on January 6, 2016, concluding Mother offered nothing new and that re-litigation would harm the child; Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) Defendant's Argument (Father/Trial Court) Held
Whether petitioner must allege a "substantial change in circumstances" to seek custody modification Mother: Trial court erred by requiring a substantial-change averment and dismissing petition for that reason Trial court: Petition alleged no change and merely re-litigated matters already decided; petitioner still bears burden to show modification is in child's best interest Held: Court did not apply an improper standard; while best-interest is controlling, the movant must show how modification serves best interest and here Mother offered nothing new
Whether denial without a hearing violated procedural due process Mother: Denial without hearing deprived her of due process and chance to show modification is in child's best interest Trial court: No authority requires a hearing on a facially insufficient modification petition; a hearing is required only before actually modifying custody; Mother failed to plead facts warranting reopening Held: No due-process violation; dismissal without hearing was permissible where petition raised no new facts and claimant bore burden to demonstrate best interest
Whether court erred by not evaluating best-interest factors or holding a hearing before dismissal Mother: The court should have determined best interest under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a) Trial court: Best-interest review remains the guiding standard, but petitioner must present new facts showing modification serves best interest; repetition of previously litigated claims does not justify re-litigation Held: Court properly required the petitioner to allege facts showing a change or new circumstances implicating the child's best interest; dismissal was appropriate
Whether Mother’s ongoing conduct (claims child autistic) justifies refusing modification Mother: Impliedly argues she should be allowed further proceedings despite prior findings Trial court: Mother’s continued false assertions and refusal to accept medical evidence demonstrate disregard for child’s welfare and would harm the child if proceedings were reopened Held: Court found Mother’s conduct detrimental and that re-litigation posed potential harm; this supported dismissal

Key Cases Cited

  • M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (scope and standard of review of custody orders)
  • Daniel K.D. v. Jan M.R., 446 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Super. 1982) (first inquiry in modification is whether substantial change in circumstances justifies reconsideration)
  • Karls v. Karls, 544 A.2d 1328 (Pa. 1988) (best-interest inquiry may be required for modification even without showing substantial change)
  • McMillen v. McMillen, 602 A.2d 845 (Pa. 1992) (addresses standards for custody modification and best-interest analysis)
  • Johns v. Cinci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004) (burden on party seeking modification to show it is in child’s best interest)
  • Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis on continuity, stability, and finality in custody arrangements)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: J.P.W., Jr. v. A.N.H.
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Aug 24, 2016
Docket Number: 191 WDA 2016
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.