R.S. v. T.T.
113 A.3d 1254
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Child born 2007; parents previously shared custody by a 2011 order (alternating weekends + mid-week Father custody).
- Mother petitioned to modify custody in June 2013 seeking primary physical custody for the school year; Father counter-petitioned for primary custody.
- Trial held April 28, 2014; trial court (June 24, 2014) awarded Mother primary physical custody during the school year, summer shared custody, and continued shared legal custody.
- Court relied in part on stability/continuity concerns and transportation time between parents’ homes (Mother ~2 miles from school; Father ~14 miles).
- Father appealed, arguing the court’s findings about commute/time in transit and the need to deprive Father of school-week time were unsupported and unreasonable; appellate court vacated and remanded, ordering a shared physical custody outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s finding that frequent driving/transit justified awarding Mother primary custody | Trial-court finding that commute/transit was detrimental lacked evidentiary support; no agreement by parties that transit was harmful | Mother argued school entry requires single primary residence for routine and stability; current commute/transfers are disruptive | Court of Appeals: trial court abused its discretion; record did not support the transit/agreement finding and transit (max ~35–40 min) did not justify changing shared custody; reversed |
| Whether depriving Father of significant school-week time was justified given his demonstrated willingness to facilitate school logistics | Father argued the order unduly reduced his weekday access despite being more likely to foster continuing contact; court ignored potential harm from reduced father time | Mother argued primary residency best for Child’s routine and education | Court: trial court failed to address harm from uprooting established care pattern and the reduction of Father’s time; reversal and remand for shared physical custody ordered |
| Whether Child’s school entry constitutes a special circumstance necessitating primary custody | Father: school entry is common to all families and alone is not special; shared custody factors support continuing shared custody | Mother: starting school increases need for a single, stable home base and routine | Court: not a special circumstance; shared custody remains appropriate where parents are fit and willing; shared custody ordered |
| Whether the trial court properly applied best-interests factors (23 Pa.C.S. §5328) | Father: court misapplied factor 4 (stability) and inconsistently treated factor 1 (encouraging contact) while reducing Father’s time | Mother: factors favored primary custody for stability and school continuity | Court: some factor findings unsupported or unreasonable; abused discretion to award primary custody—remanded for shared physical custody outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for custody appeals and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best-interests standard overview)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (best-interests analysis principles)
- Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors supporting shared custody)
- E.A.L. v. L.J.W., 662 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 1995) (court must discuss possible effects of transferring custody)
- Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2006) (importance of continuity and stability in custody changes)
- Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consideration of disruption from changing custody patterns)
- In re Wesley J.K., 445 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. 1982) (factors to consider when awarding shared custody)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (late filing of concise statement may be excused absent prejudice)