R.L.P. v. R.F.M.
110 A.3d 201
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- After an April 2014 custody hearing the trial judge announced a custody ruling on the record and entered an order directing the court reporter to transcribe the relevant portion of the notes of testimony as the court's order (a 46‑page transcript). Mother appealed that transcription order.
- Superior Court held the transcript‑as‑order was not an appealable/enforceable order and directed the trial court to enter a separate custody order; the trial court later entered a clear two‑page written custody order (October 14, 2014).
- The custody award: shared legal custody; primary physical custody to Mother; partial physical custody to Father with a detailed weekday/weekend schedule and holiday/vacation provisions; stepmother authorized to care for Child only when both parents are unavailable.
- The Superior Court found the transcript version confusing and not "sufficiently specific to enforce" under Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b), but it affirmed the substance of the trial court’s custody determination.
- The Court held (published) that, to be enforceable, a custody order must be entered as a separate written order or as a separately labeled "Order" section of a written opinion — a custody order may not be embodied merely by a transcript of trial or hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether a transcript of the oral ruling satisfies Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b) and is an appealable/enforceable custody order | Mother treated the transcript entry as the court’s order and appealed it | Trial court relied on the transcript; Superior Court argued transcription is not a proper standalone order and trial court later issued a separate written order | Held: Transcript alone is not enforceable; custody orders must be on a separate written order or a separate "Order" section of an opinion to satisfy Rule 1915.10(b) and Pa.R.A.P. rules |
| 2) Whether trial court erred by allowing Stepmother to have custody when both parents unavailable | Mother objected that this effectively gave custody to Stepmother and complained about disruptions to Child’s sibling relationship | Trial court limited Stepmother’s custody to times when both parents are unavailable and found Stepmother acted in loco parentis | Held: No error—trial court may permit Stepmother care when both parents unavailable; Mother’s challenge lacked merit |
| 3) Whether exclusion/limitation of testimony about Stepmother’s antidepressant/anti‑anxiety use was error | Mother argued trial court improperly prevented inquiry and speculated Stepmother might suffer psychosis | Trial court found medication use alone did not demonstrate inability to parent; no record support for psychosis claim | Held: No error—Mother’s speculation unsupported; trial court’s treatment of medication evidence was proper |
| 4) Multiple procedural and evidentiary complaints (child preference, alienation, late documents, sibling separation, other listed issues) | Mother raised numerous challenges asserting the court ignored or misweighed evidence | Trial court made fact findings, considered relevant factors; several of Mother’s claims were waived for lack of development/citations or lacked record citations | Held: Majority affirmed; many issues waived for inadequate briefing or without merit given record and deference to trial court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (scope and standard of review in custody appeals)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider Section 5328 factors)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court must consider custody and relocation factors and explain reasons)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no required level of detail so long as factors considered)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deference to trial court’s observed credibility and custody determinations)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best‑interests standard overview)
- S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate interference unwarranted when trial court carefully considers best interests)
- Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussion of familial ties and sibling relationships)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues inadequately developed in brief are waived)