P.J.P. v. M.M.
185 A.3d 413
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Parents share legal custody; a 2016 order awarded Mother primary physical custody and Father alternating partial physical custody by schedule. Father filed a 2017 petition to modify custody seeking shared physical custody.
- A two-day custody hearing occurred; both parents testified about cooperation, communication with the child, and co‑parenting counseling.
- Mother presented evidence she encouraged Father–child contact (photos, invitations) and that Father belittled her in the child’s presence and impeded communication; Father disputed some facts and cited practical issues (phone camera, schedule changes).
- The trial court found Mother more likely to encourage contact, found greater availability of maternal extended family, found evidence Father attempted to turn the child against Mother, and found a high level of interparental conflict; no factors weighed in Father’s favor.
- The trial court denied Father’s petition for shared physical custody; Father appealed pro se from the denial and a same‑day denial of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying modification to shared physical custody | Trial court biased, misapplied §5328 factors, and made unreasonable factual/credibility findings favoring Mother | Trial court’s findings are supported by the record; Father’s conduct and lack of cooperation make shared custody contrary to child’s best interest | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; factual findings sustained and conclusions reasonable |
| Whether the trial court misapplied the §5328(a) best‑interest factors (esp. factors 1,5,8,13) | These factors actually favor Father and the court mischaracterized evidence | Court properly considered and weighed the §5328 factors and reasonably found those four favored Mother | Held: court considered §5328 factors; record supports its conclusions |
| Whether Wiseman v. Wall requires specific preconditions before awarding shared custody | Father: Wiseman’s four preconditions (fitness, desire, child’s recognition, minimal cooperation) must be satisfied; Father meets them | Mother: §5328(a) now governs best interests and subsumes Wiseman; courts need not make separate Wiseman findings | Held: Wiseman analysis is superseded/assimilated by §5328(a); courts need not make separate Wiseman findings before awarding shared custody |
| Whether a minimal degree of cooperation must exist for shared custody and whether lack of cooperation compels shared custody | Father: minimal cooperation exists and shared custody might reduce conflict | Mother: high conflict and lack of meaningful cooperation make shared custody unworkable and harmful to child | Held: court reasonably found parents lacked minimal cooperation; lack of cooperation weighed against shared custody under §5328(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa.Super. 1998) (articulated four preconditions for shared custody)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa.Super. 2013) (primary‑caregiver doctrine undermined by §5328)
- R.S. v. T.T., 113 A.3d 1254 (Pa.Super. 2015) (reviewed §5328(a) factors and reversed where trial court’s weighing was unreasonable)
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa.Super. 2012) (standard of review for custody orders: abuse of discretion; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa.Super. 2012) (same: appellate scope and deference to trial court factfinding)
- Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086 (Pa.Super. 1993) (cases discussing factors relevant to custody arrangements)