M.N.M.L v. C.R.L., 699 MDA 2016

Parents married in 2002, separated in 2013; three children born 2003, 2007, 2009. Mother initiated custody proceedings during divorce and a consent custody order was entered after a 2013 conciliation conference.
Over ~2 years Mother filed multiple petitions seeking to modify custody (including suspending Father’s custody); parties continued largely in a shared custody arrangement with Mother keeping one extra overnight per month.
Mother sought sole legal custody and primary physical custody; Father sought equal physical custody. The matter proceeded to a two-day custody trial with testimony from both parents, the court-ordered custody evaluator (Dr. Arnold Shienvold), and the children’s therapist.
The trial court interviewed the children in camera, found both parents to be loving and involved, and adopted a shared legal and equal physical custody order with certain limitations and counseling requirements for Father.
Mother appealed, raising credibility challenges, arguments that she was the primary/clearly superior caretaker, that the court improperly weighed statutory custody factors and expert testimony, and that the court’s vacation schedule favored Father.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
1. Credibility of Father	Trial court wrongly credited Father (e.g., about permitting daughter to watch an R-rated film) despite evidence he lied	Trial court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference	Court upheld credibility findings; no reversible error in crediting Father
2. Equally fit parents / primary caretaker	Mother was primary, more organized, no mental-health/alcohol issues; Father had mental-health and drinking history	Both parents are concerned, loving; Father made progress in counseling	Court found parents essentially equal on many §5328 factors and awarded shared custody
3. Weight given to custody evaluator & statutory factors	Court gave insufficient weight to Dr. Shienvold and therapist; court’s review of §5328 factors was cursory	Trial court considered §5328 factors and was not required to adopt expert recommendations in full	Court held trial judge properly considered factors, could weigh evidence as factfinder, and reasonably fashioned shared custody order
4. Vacation schedule	Mother argued court denied her consecutive two-week summer vacation periods and favored Father’s trips	Order permits each parent 14 days/year and make-up time; no prohibition on consecutive days if notice and make-up rules followed	Court found order neutral; no bias and Mother not precluded from consecutive vacations with notice

M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope and standard of review in custody appeals; trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (best interests standard requires case‑by‑case assessment of §5328 factors)
Nomland v. Nomland, 813 A.2d 850 (Pa. Super. 2002) (trial court not required to adopt expert recommendations in full if its conclusions are supported by the record)
M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may rely on record evidence rather than adopt expert views verbatim)