M.J.N. v. J.K.
M.J.N. v. J.K. No. 330 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother J.K. and Father M.J.N.) share a child born 2009; they had a March 12, 2012 stipulation providing shared legal custody and alternating two‑week physical custody (roughly 50/50).
- Father filed a Petition for Contempt and Modification on June 21, 2016 alleging Mother withheld the child on exchanges, interfered with phone contact, and coached the child.
- A custody trial and in‑camera interview of the child occurred December 1–2, 2016; the trial court issued an order December 23, 2016 awarding joint legal custody, awarding Mother primary physical custody and Father partial custody on a new schedule, and holding Mother in contempt of the prior order (awarding Father make‑up time).
- Father filed motions for reconsideration and to open the record (denied), then appealed, challenging the custody allocation, the schedule (including alleged lengthy in‑person gaps), absence of a right‑of‑first‑refusal and summer time adjustments, the court’s treatment of custody factors, and denial of his motion to preclude the child’s testimony.
- The Superior Court reviewed the trial court’s findings under abuse‑of‑discretion, analyzed the 16 Child Custody Act factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328), found multiple factor weightings unreasonable or unsupported by the record (noting overreliance on the child’s relationship with his half‑brother and inconsistent treatment of Mother’s contempt and conduct), vacated the custody order in part, affirmed the contempt finding, and remanded to reinstate the prior 50/50 physical custody schedule and consider Father’s requested modification allowing a responsible adult to retrieve/accept custody for Father.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not awarding Father primary physical custody | Father: record and §5328 factors support awarding him primary custody | Mother: primary custody better serves stability, child’s attachment to half‑brother, and availability | Court: trial court’s factor weightings unreasonable in part; vacated custody order and reinstated prior 50/50 physical custody (remanded) |
| Whether new schedule improperly creates long gaps of in‑person contact and lacks right of first refusal / extra summer time | Father: schedule creates up to 10‑day in‑person gaps; telephone contact insufficient; sought right of first refusal and more summer time | Mother: schedule acceptable given child’s ties to home and half‑brother; court allowed phone contact | Court: agreed portions of schedule were unreasonable given record; remanded to reimpose prior 50/50 schedule and consider Father’s requested modification allowing another responsible adult to accept custody on his behalf |
| Whether court misweighed §5328 factors (encouraging contact, stability, parental duties, conflict, nurturing) | Father: many factors weigh for him or neutral; court overstressed half‑brother relationship and Mother’s work‑from‑home advantage; contempt and Mother’s conduct show she is less fit to co‑parent | Mother: her greater day‑to‑day availability and proximity to school/practices favors her | Court: several factor findings unsupported or unreasonable (notably overemphasis on half‑brother and inconsistent treatment of Mother’s contempt/behavior); required remand for correction |
| Whether denial of motion to preclude child’s testimony was error | Father: child was influenced/poisoned against him; testimony should be excluded or given little weight | Mother: child’s preference is admissible and relevant to best interests | Court: denial not error; child’s preference is an important factor, but trial court unreasonably overemphasized it |
Key Cases Cited
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards of review and necessity to consider all §5328 factors)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate standard regarding custody fact‑finding and credibility)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best‑interests standard requires case‑by‑case analysis of factors affecting child’s welfare)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (best‑interests and custody considerations)
- McMillen v. McMillen, 602 A.2d 845 (Pa. 1992) (child’s expressed wishes are important, though not controlling, in custody decisions)
- M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (on appellate court substituting its judgment where record is sufficiently developed)