K.R.W. v. J.R.R.
K.R.W. v. J.R.R. No. 1114 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Parents (K.R.W. — Mother; J.R.R. — Father) are unmarried biological parents of two young children born 2011 and 2012; relationship was turbulent with mutual PFA filings and past CYF involvement in Allegheny County.
- Mother moved to Venango County in 2013; Father later moved to Crawford County; parties continued shared custody arrangements at times but separated in May 2014.
- Mother filed for custody in Venango County in July 2014; after interim shared custody and later hearings, the trial court (Dec 2014) awarded Mother sole legal and primary physical custody; Father appealed but later withdrew; Father later filed modification petitions which were denied.
- This Court vacated the May 2015 order and remanded for a new hearing addressing §5328(a) factors; a new trial was held in April–May 2016, after which the trial court again awarded Mother primary physical and sole legal custody and limited partial custody to Father.
- Father appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings under multiple §5328(a) best-interest factors (encouragement of contact, parental duties/education, stability/nurturing, substance/mental health, and the court’s weighing of post-litigation conduct). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | J.R.R.'s Argument | K.R.W.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother is more likely to encourage and permit frequent contact between children and Father (§5328(a)(1)) | Mother has a history of substance abuse and instability; thus Father contends she is less likely to foster contact and be forthcoming about the children. | Mother encourages contact, invites Father to events, offered expanded custody time, and has improved communication; paternal-grandmother sometimes undermines exchanges. | Trial court credited Mother’s cooperation and found factor favors Mother; Superior Court found no abuse of discretion. |
| Which parent is more likely to perform parental duties and attend to educational needs (§5328(a)(3) & (10)) | Father argues he is employed, has vocational training, and has provided for the children’s school attendance previously; Mother’s lateness and lack of degree/steady employment undermine her fitness. | Mother volunteers at preschool/Head Start, enrolled children in programs, understands and follows through on special needs (lazy eye, speech), shares school info with Father. | Court found Mother more engaged with education and daily developmental needs; Superior Court affirmed based on record. |
| Which parent provides greater stability, continuity, and nurturing (§5328(a)(4) & (9)) | Father contends Mother moved, had arrests, changing relationships, and thus is less stable; Father claims he is more stable and aided by paternal-grandmother. | Mother has lived with supportive parents, has consistent involvement with children, and the court found her relationships not detrimental; Mother has reliable transportation. | Court found parents roughly equally competent but leaned that Mother provided more consistent nurturing and educational stability; Superior Court sustained the finding. |
| Impact of history of substance/alcohol abuse and mental/physical condition (§5328(a)(14) & (15)) | Father emphasizes Mother’s past drug use, arrests, and alleged relapse risk; argues these weigh against Mother. | Mother had completed/engaged in treatment, was in ARD for minor offenses, abstains from illegal drugs/Suboxone per testimony, and received mental health treatment after personal tragedy. | Trial court found both parents had histories but were addressing issues; these factors were neutral/equal; Superior Court declined to disturb that conclusion. |
| Whether trial court improperly weighed parties’ post-litigation behavior | Father argues Mother’s ongoing legal, mental health, and stability concerns should outweigh Father’s conduct and merit awarding him primary custody. | Mother’s post-litigation treatment, compliance, and caregiving rebut Father’s claims; Father’s driving on suspended (DUI-related) license was a negative. | Superior Court deferred to trial court’s credibility assessments and weight determinations and affirmed the custody award to Mother. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review and primacy of child's best interest in custody appeals)
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to trial court on credibility and weight of evidence in custody cases)
- R.M. v. J.S., 20 A.3d 496 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court may affirm trial court on any sustainable basis supported by the record)