118 A.3d 1136
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- After father D.T. died in 2013, paternal grandparents (K.T. and M.R.T.) filed for partial physical custody of his two minor children; mother L.S. was sole custodian and opposed grandparent contact.
- Mother previously lived with paternal grandparents when the older child was an infant; thereafter parents split custody until mother moved multiple times (Hawaii, New York, Wisconsin, then York County) and limited grandparents’ access and contact. Grandparents found children only after hiring private investigators following father’s death.
- Trial court entered an interim custody order (Oct. 2013) granting limited phased-in partial custody and weekly Skype contact; mother contested and later refused contact outside court-ordered terms. Mother’s husband sought to adopt the children; grandparents intervened and the adoption decree was vacated.
- At the February 2014 custody trial the court expressed hostility to statutory custody factors, dismissed the grandparents’ complaint, and denied all partial custody. The Superior Court remanded, instructing the trial court to apply the 16 Section 5328(a) factors and the grandparent-specific Section 5328(c)(1) factors.
- On remand the trial court issued a brief factor-by-factor decision with conclusory findings; the Superior Court found that decision deficient, that the court improperly admitted evidence of non-enumerated criminal offenses, reversed, and remanded with instructions to enter the earlier interim order as final and to require mother to enable Skype visual contact within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paternal Grandparents) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied Section 5328 factors on remand | Trial court failed to perform a meaningful, record-based analysis of the 16 best-interest factors and the 3 grandparent-specific factors; many findings contradict the evidence and ignore mother’s role in cutting off contact | Court (trial) argued it had discretion and expressed constitutional concerns about statutory factor lists; mother emphasized conflict and harms from Skype/visits | Superior Court: trial court’s remand decision was cursory and many conclusions contradicted the record; reversal and remand with instruction to enter interim order as final (grandparents awarded partial custody per interim order) |
| Whether denying all grandparent partial custody (cutting off paternal ancestry) was in children’s best interest | Grandparents argued the denial severed beneficial ties to father’s family; they previously provided care and have standing under §5325 | Mother argued grandparents are inappropriate, visits upset children, and mother/husband provide stable home | Superior Court: public policy favors grandparent involvement; trial court failed to adequately consider benefits and record evidence—reversed and remanded to implement interim order |
| Admissibility of evidence of criminal/motor offenses not enumerated in §5329 | Grandparents argued non-enumerated convictions (bad checks, theft of services, trespass, harassment) are irrelevant under §5329 and improperly admitted; admission prejudiced custody findings | Mother argued any background/conviction evidence is relevant under §5328(a)(16) and to character/child safety | Superior Court: admission of non-§5329 offenses was error (statute limits relevance to enumerated offenses); such evidence should not have been admitted—error warranted reversal |
| Whether distance/conflict justified denying partial custody | Grandparents said distance and past lack of contact were largely due to mother’s moves and efforts to hide contact info; grandparents were willing to phase-in and share schedule | Mother and trial court emphasized high, unresolvable conflict and ~5.5 hour distance as undermining practicality and child stability | Superior Court: trial court overemphasized distance and conflict without properly analyzing how those factors affect children; record did not support total exclusion—remanded to implement interim order |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of appellate review in custody matters)
- Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate review principles for custody findings)
- Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006) (recognizing benefits of grandparent-grandchild relationships but permitting courts to override a fit parent in limited circumstances)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Williams v. Miller, 385 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 1978) (custodial parent’s animosity is insufficient alone to deny grandparent visitation; court must assess harm to child)
- Johnson v. Diesinger, 589 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 1991) (on effects of parental-grandparent animosity and focus on child welfare)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court abuse of discretion standard in custody appeals)
- Ramer v. Ramer, 914 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2006) (statutory interpretation: §5329 limits criminal-conviction considerations to enumerated offenses)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must consider all §5328(a) factors; no required level of detail but factors must be addressed)