M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331

Background

Mother and Father are non-marital parents; Child is their only child with extended family in Westmoreland County.
Child born August 28, 2006; Father filed for joint custody on November 29, 2007; initial order in 2008 awarded Mother primary custody with Father's visitation supervised.
In 2009, relocation to West Virginia was allowed by consent, increasing Father’s custody to unsupervised periods.
From 2010 to 2012 there were multiple petitions and hearings over custody, including a 2010 order granting Mother primary custody with alternating schedules.
On January 26, 2012 Father sought modification; August 9, 2012 order awarded Father primary physical custody and Mother partial custody; Explanation of Decision filed later.
Mother appeals claiming improper factual/credibility findings, misapplication of 5328(a) factors, and failure to apply the primary caretaker doctrine; Court affirms the trial court’s decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the custody order lacked required factual findings and legal reasoning	Mother argues 5323(d) and 5328(a) require explicit, detailed reasoning.	Father contends the court adequately weighed statutory factors and explained reasons in its Explanation of Decision.	No reversible error; sufficient articulation of factors and reasoning.
Whether 5328(a) factors support the custody change	Mother contends none of the factors support Father’s primary custody.	Father maintains the court properly weighed all factors and found them supportive overall.	Court properly weighed the factors; findings supported by the record.
Whether the primary caretaker doctrine should have favored Mother	Mother requests positive consideration as primary caretaker under the doctrine.	Court found Mother not equally fit and rejected applying the doctrine; post-2011 statutory changes diminish its role.	Primary caretaker doctrine no longer viable as an independent weighting factor; implicit consideration permissible under 5328(a)(16).

Key Cases Cited

J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (best interests require weighing 5328(a) factors; credibility deferential review)
M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (court must articulate reasons for custody decision prior to appeal)
Commonwealth ex rel. Jordan v. Jordan, 448 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Super. 1982) (primary caretaker doctrine; positive consideration when parents equally fit)
Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2006) (recognition of primary caretaker considerations within custody analysis)
Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Super. 2004) (primary caretaker concept discussed in equal fitness context)
Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2002) (education, stability, and family life factors in custody)
Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 629 A.2d 996 (Pa. Super. 1993) (earlier articulation of custody considerations)
Mumma v. Mumma, 550 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Super. 1988) (primary caretaker discussion in context of fit parents)
Schwarcz v. Schwarcz, 548 A.2d 556 (Pa. Super. 1988) (early custody factors framework)
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 486 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. 1984) (primary caretaker-related considerations in custody)
Haag v. Haag, 485 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 1984) (custody best interests analysis context)
Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125 (Pa. Super. 2011) (criticizes unconditional primary caregiver weighting)
Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of weighting factors in custody)
Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2006) (weighting of factors in best interests analysis)
A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court credibility and weighing of factors guidance)