R.L.H. v. L.C.
R.L.H. v. L.C. No. 2100 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Parents R.L.H. (Father) and L.C. (Mother) share four children born 1999–2005; long-standing, contentious custody history with multiple prior orders and appeals.
- December 18, 2012 custody order awarded shared legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother, and partial/visitation time to Father; Father later obtained primary custody of one child (B.C.H.) by agreement.
- In early 2015, mother’s then-paramour’s son (Stepbrother) sexually assaulted daughter S.S.H.; S.S.H. became pregnant and had an abortion; CYF investigated and juvenile criminal/ probation proceedings occurred.
- Father filed a petition to modify custody (June 29, 2016) seeking primary physical custody of two younger children, citing safety concerns and Mother’s conduct; evidentiary hearing held Oct. 26–27, 2016.
- Trial court retained shared legal custody, awarded Mother primary physical custody of three children (E.S.H., S.S.H., A.A.H.) and Father primary physical custody of B.C.H.; ordered alternating weekend and summer schedules. Father appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) factors and erred in awarding Mother primary custody | Father argued Mother’s conduct (child sexual assault in her home, abortion concealment, housing instability) made custody change necessary | Mother argued she addressed safety concerns, CYF cleared other complaints, and continuity with her home/school supported keeping custody | Court found trial judge thoroughly considered all §5328 factors, credited evidence that Mother took appropriate steps; no abuse of discretion — affirmed |
| Whether trial court improperly questioned witnesses/children, interfering with Father’s examination | Father claimed the court repeatedly interrupted and took over his questioning, prejudicing him | Mother and court maintained questioning was to clarify the record and elicit necessary information | Court held judicial questioning was proper, not biased, and did not amount to reversible abuse of discretion |
| Whether court failed to give proper weight to police/CYF testimony and Mother’s alleged untruthfulness re: the assault/abortion | Father argued Detective Ryman’s testimony and Mother’s initial lack of candor should have shifted custody | Mother’s position: she cooperated later, took steps to protect S.S.H., and criminal/juvenile matters were handled | Court credited trial judge’s factfinding and credibility assessments; trial court reasonably weighed that evidence and found Mother not culpable for assault — no relief to Father |
| Whether trial court erred by not holding Mother in contempt for perjury, child endangerment, or pretrial noncompliance | Father requested contempt findings for multiple alleged violations and misconduct | Mother disputed the claims or argued issues were litigated elsewhere; contempt order denying relief was entered below | Appellate court found (1) many contempt claims were not properly before it or were waived; (2) contempt order denying relief was not part of this appeal; issues not reviewable here — no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding in custody appeals)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial-court discretion in custody matters and respect for trial court’s observation of witnesses)
- M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained for custody appeals)
- Fleck v. Durawood Inc., 529 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 1987) (trial court’s right/duty to question witnesses; reversal only when record shows prejudice or bias)