L.G.L., Jr. v. A.R.L., L.G.L., Jr. v. A.R.L. No. 1644 MDA 2016

Parents (Father: L.G.L., Jr.; Mother: A.R.L.) share a child; 2007 final custody order awarded Mother primary physical custody and shared legal custody; Superior Court affirmed in 2008.
In August 2016, Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking permission to obtain counseling for the child without Father’s consent; she did not request any custody modification in the petition.
The trial court held an off-the-record discussion with counsel on September 6, 2016; no transcript, testimony, or evidentiary hearing was held.
The court entered an order granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody and allowed counseling without Father’s consent; the order did not state reasons on the record or in writing.
Father appealed, arguing the court failed to consider the Section 5328(a) child-custody factors, failed to give notice that custody was at issue, and failed to hold a proper evidentiary hearing or articulate reasons for the change.
The trial court acknowledged error in failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing and requested remand; the Superior Court vacated and remanded for a full hearing.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court considered all 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) factors before changing custody	Trial court failed to consider and analyze each § 5328(a) factor	(Implicit) Change was appropriate	Court held trial court erred — factors were not considered; remand required
Whether the court provided adequate reasons on the record or in writing for the custody change	Order lacks delineated reasons; no record support for modification	(Implicit) No written reasons necessary here	Court held reasons were not provided as required by § 5323(d); remand required
Whether the court could modify custody on Mother’s petition for special relief when custody modification was not requested	Father had no notice custody would be at issue; due process violation	Mother did not request custody modification in petition	Court held it was error to change custody where Mother did not request it and Father had no notice; remand required
Whether the proceeding satisfied due process and required evidentiary standards	Father argued no full and fair hearing occurred; decision was based on off-the-record discussion	Mother proceeded via special-relief petition and informal resolution	Court held absence of transcript, evidence, and on-the-record hearing violated procedures; remand for full evidentiary hearing

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review and limits on appellate interference with trial court custody findings)
R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review principles for custody determinations)
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must perform thorough best-interests analysis under Child Custody Act)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all § 5328(a) factors must be considered when entering custody order)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must delineate reasons on the record or in a written opinion; no specific level of detail required)
Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court may not permanently modify custody without a petition for modification; lack of notice violates due process)
J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to file Rule 1925 concise statement with notice of appeal may be treated case-by-case; technical noncompliance may not result in waiver)