J.S.F. v. K.G.S.
431 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Parents (Mother K.G.F./K.G.S. and Father J.S.F.) share a child born May 1, 2009; both are educators employed by the School District of Lancaster (SDL). They lived about 35–45 minutes apart and previously operated under a shared/rotating custody order.
- Mother filed a petition to modify custody (April 15, 2015) seeking primary physical custody and to enroll the child in Cocalico School District (near Mother); Father sought primary custody to keep the child at Buchanan Elementary in SDL (near Father).
- Conciliation conference occurred; hearing was scheduled then rescheduled and ultimately held on Jan. 8, Jan. 14, and Feb. 17, 2016. Trial court issued a custody order (Mar. 3, 2016) awarding Father primary physical custody during the school year, Mother partial custody at specified times, shared custody in summer, and shared legal custody.
- Trial court found factors favoring Father: he was more likely to encourage continuing contact with Mother, provided greater stability/continuity in the child’s education and routines, and both parents’ SDL employment made custody with Father during school beneficial. Court also noted Mother’s pattern of restricting Father and concerns about supervision and injuries occurring while child was with Mother.
- Mother appealed raising numerous issues (28), but Superior Court found most waived (brief exceeded page/word limits) and reviewed the first nine, rejecting each and affirming the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial commenced beyond 90 days after scheduling order (Pa.R.C.P.1915.4(c)) | The trial court violated the 90‑day rule and custody order should be reversed. | Court scheduling conflict caused rescheduling; no authority that late start requires reversal. | Rejected—no precedent requiring reversal for commencement beyond 90 days; issue without merit. |
| Denial of request to bypass custody conciliation conference | Mother argued conciliation was not mandatory and caused delay preventing school-year relief. | Conference was proper under local procedure and rules; no authority requiring direct referral to trial. | Waived/Rejected—no controlling authority and issue inadequately supported; conciliation denial not error. |
| School-district decision (child to remain at Buchanan SDL vs. move to Cocalico) | Mother argued prior order preserved ability to revisit school placement and later hearing prejudiced her ability to secure Cocalico placement. | Father argued continuity, child’s settled routine, proximity to his home, and parents’ SDL employment favored staying at Buchanan. | Affirmed—trial court reasonably weighed §5328 factors, prioritized stability/continuity and parents’ SDL employment; no abuse of discretion. |
| Exclusion of out-of-state witness testimony by phone (mother of Father’s other child) | Mother said witness was central to impeach Father and corroborate claims; denial prejudiced her case. | Father objected to relevancy; witness had no demonstrable, relevant firsthand knowledge. | Rejected—trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding telephone testimony; exclusion not shown to be prejudicial. |
| Failure to review Father’s employment records in camera after prior order | Mother sought in-camera review to probe suspensions/accusations; court had previously ordered review. | School District moved to quash subpoena and records were not produced; Mother did not move to enforce subpoena. | Rejected—records unavailable due to quash motion and Mother’s failure to enforce subpoena; no basis to find error. |
| §5328 best‑interest analysis (weighting of factors) | Mother contended court undervalued extended family, sibling relationship, and overstated Father’s advantages; alleged court misapplied/ignored factors. | Father pointed to his greater day-to-day stability, proximity to school, attendance at school events, and evidence Mother limited Father’s access. | Affirmed—trial court considered all §5328 factors, gave reasoned explanations favoring Father on key factors (1,4,8,9,10) and its conclusions were supported by competent evidence and not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (scope and abuse‑of‑discretion standard of review in custody appeals)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial‑court advantage in observing witnesses in custody cases)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial courts must consider all §5328 factors when entering custody orders)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court must delineate §5328 analysis on record)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (appellate advocacy principle: focus issues; avoid shotgun approach)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (discussion on appellate briefing and issue selection)