Mo v. Fw, 42 A.3d 1068

Parents M.O. (Father) and F.W. (Mother) were never married and shared custody disputes regarding their four-year-old daughter O.O.
A 2009 custody order granted Mother sole legal and primary physical custody, with Father receiving rotating, limited supervised physical custody.
In January 2011, Father filed a PFA petition alleging abuse by Mother and her boyfriend, and sought a custody modification to grant him full custody pending child protection findings.
A consolidated seven-day custody, contempt, and PFA hearing occurred in 2011; the court temporarily restrained Father’s access and required supervised visits pending outcome.
The trial court later found abuse allegations unfounded, concluded Father manufactured evidence, and issued a final custody order on August 22, 2011 granting Mother sole legal and physical custody and limiting Father to two 2-hour supervised visits weekly.
Father challenged the final order on multiple grounds, which the Superior Court affirmed as to the first three issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion re custody order	Father asserted weight of evidence favored Father for custody.	Mother contends best interests favored sole custody to protect Child.	No abuse; order affirmed; custody in Child's best interests.
Whether court erred denying motion to remove counsel	Father claimed conflict with Mother’s counsel justifies removal.	Court found counsel credible and no conflict; denial appropriate.	Denied; no reversible error.
Whether court erred denying amended recusal/mistrial motions	Father alleged bias and prejudice against him by the trial judge.	Court acted impartially and properly handled recusal/mistrial motions.	Denied; no abuse of discretion.
Whether court erred admitting 2009 Cohen custody report	Cohen report should not be admitted absent cross-examination.	Report clarified history; admissible given witnesses referenced it and Father referenced it too.	Affirmed admission; not an abuse of discretion.
Whether temporary June 9, 2011 order was an abuse	Temporary order harmed Father’s rights pending final decision.	Order was a measured precaution to protect the Child and prevent further examinations.	Not an abuse; order was reasonable and temporary.

Cyran v. Cyran, 389 Pa. Super. 128, 566 A.2d 878 (1989) (expert reports in custody require confrontation or consent)
Hall v. Luick, 314 Pa. Super. 460, 461 A.2d 248 (1983) (due process requires opportunity to confront adverse witnesses)
Kaneski v. Kaneski, 413 Pa. Super. 173, 604 A.2d 1075 (1992) (broad standard of review in custody appeals; not abuse of discretion absent compelling evidence)
Buccino v. Buccino, 264 Pa. Super. 241, 580 A.2d 13 (1990) (harmless error when improperly admitted evidence does not affect ruling)
McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d 845 (1992) (broad appellate review limits in custody decisions)
In re F.B., 927 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 2007) (guides temporary custody determinations and finality considerations)