M.O. v. J.T.R.
85 A.3d 1058
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced; two minor sons subject to prior Tennessee agreed parenting plan giving Mother primary custody and Father summer visitation (five weeks total; two weeks during plant closure).
- Father filed a petition to modify (Jan 2013) seeking more time, changes to transportation, and clarification; parties resolved most issues before trial except whether Father must be off work during three of his summer weeks.
- The custody hearing on May 22, 2013 was limited by agreement of the parties to that single issue; limited testimony was taken and the court ruled Father need not take off work for those three weeks.
- Mother moved for reconsideration (denied) and appealed, arguing the court failed to: (1) consider all 16 factors in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a); (2) delineate reasons as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(d); and (3) conduct a de novo hearing under Pa.R.C.P. 1915.4-3(b).
- Trial court explained it considered the children’s best interests and those §5328 factors relevant to the narrow issue; it provided oral reasons on the record. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must analyze all 16 §5328 factors when resolving a narrow, ancillary custody issue | Court erred by not expressly addressing every §5328(a) factor | When resolving a discrete, non-award modification, court need only consider children’s best interests and the factors relevant to the specific issue | Court held §5328(a) not triggered in full because no custody award was made; court need not address all 16 factors for a narrow ancillary modification |
| Whether court was required to delineate reasons under §5323(d) | Court failed to provide statutory written/oral rationale for all 16 factors | §5323(d) rationale requirement applies to custody awards; not required for limited ancillary rulings, though court did give oral reasons | Court held §5323(d) not applicable to this non-award modification; oral explanation on record was sufficient |
| Whether Mother waived right to a de novo hearing under Pa.R.C.P. 1915.4-3(b) | Court did not conduct de novo hearing as required | Mother consented to limiting the hearing to the single issue and did not object; thus no de novo claim preserved | Court held Mother waived the de novo-hearing claim by failing to object at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (failure to timely object results in waiver of issue)
- Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (appellate review limited where party failed to raise an objection at trial)
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody matters and application of §5328 factors in custody awards)
- Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (procedural note on filing motions for reconsideration and notices of appeal)