M.P. a/k/a M.S. v. C.J.P.
40 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Parents divorced; two children born 2003 and 2005. Prior custody order (Dec. 4, 2014) awarded shared legal custody, mother primary physical custody, father partial physical custody with a specified alternating schedule.
- Mother filed a modification petition in March 2015 (later dismissed). Father filed a modification petition May 11, 2015; Mother filed an answer with a cross-petition and a contempt petition June 11, 2015.
- Custody trial held December 2, 2015; both parents testified, mother’s fiancé testified, and court conducted an in-camera interview of the children.
- Trial court on December 7, 2015 granted shared legal custody, awarded mother primary physical custody, reduced father’s physical custody time (altered weekday and alternating weekend schedule), granted mother’s contempt petition and sanctioned father.
- Father appealed pro se, disputing the reduction in custodial time and contesting the trial court’s application of the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 best-interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in reducing Father’s physical custody | Reduction will harm children; trial court misweighed custody factors and credibility | Trial court properly applied the best-interest factors and its credibility findings are supported | Affirmed — trial court’s findings supported by competent evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in applying § 5328 factors | Father contests specific factor findings and weight given | Mother contends the court addressed each § 5328 factor and reached supported conclusions | Affirmed — court thoroughly analyzed § 5328 and findings stand |
| Whether Father preserved challenge to contempt sanction | Not raised on appeal | Mother relied on contempt sanction as part of trial court order | Waived — Father did not challenge contempt on appeal, so issue waived |
| Whether appellate brief defects warranted dismissal | N/A — pro se brief imperfect but comprehensible | Brief defects do not prejudice Mother; appeal should proceed | Court declined to quash appeal for nonconforming brief; considered arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody matters; accept trial court findings supported by competent evidence)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (best interest of the child is paramount in custody orders)
- E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 5328 factors guide custody determinations)
- King v. King, 889 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court defers to trial court credibility and weight determinations)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2005) (clarifies appellate review standard regarding trial court deference)