S.B. v. S.S.
74 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Child born in Guatemala (2006); Father and his first wife adopted Child in 2007; first wife died in 2008. Father raised Child with extended family support. Mother married Father in 2012 and adopted Child in 2013.
- Marriage deteriorated in 2013–2014; parties entered a custody agreement in November 2014 but later disputed custody. Father filed for custody in June 2015; Mother filed counterclaim.
- Mother filed two petitions for protection (PFA) alleging Father sexually abused Child; a PFA trial was held and the petitions were dismissed. The timing of Mother’s abuse allegations became a focus.
- A lengthy custody trial (23 days spread from May–November 2016) produced voluminous testimony and exhibits; the GAL recommended removal of Child from Mother’s care and reunification with Father via Family Bridges.
- Trial court (Judge Clark) entered detailed findings and awarded Father sole legal and sole physical custody, ordered participation in Family Bridges reunification, imposed a no-contact period (minimum 90 days post-intervention), and granted Father broad authority over Child’s interventions and documents; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding no sexual abuse by Father | Mother: allegations are true; trial court wrongly discredited Child’s disclosures | Father: no competent evidence of sexual abuse; allegations timed and motivated by Mother | Court: affirmed — no evidence supported sexual-abuse finding; timing suspect and court’s credibility determinations sustained |
| Whether sole custody and severe restrictions on Mother serve Child’s best interests | Mother: order unduly restricts parental rights and contact; harms due process and relationship | Father/GAL: Child alienated by Mother; intensive, restrictive reunification necessary for Child’s safety and welfare | Court: affirmed — best-interest analysis (23 Pa.C.S. §5328) supports sole custody and restrictive reunification due to extreme alienation |
| Whether trial court improperly delegated authority to Family Bridges or deprived Mother of due process (e.g., prohibiting subpoenas/testimony) | Mother: court delegated decision-making to a private program and barred access to program records/testimony, violating parental and due-process rights | Father: court may consider program recommendations; court retains ultimate decision-making; restrictions protect intervention integrity and Child | Court: affirmed — court did not abdicate duty; it may rely on professionals’ recommendations while retaining responsibility; restrictions justified by therapeutic plan |
| Whether trial court adequately explained findings and applied statutory custody factors | Mother: court failed to justify extreme restrictions and relaying decisions to third parties | Father: court issued detailed findings and applied §5328 factors thoroughly | Court: affirmed — detailed findings and factor-by-factor analysis on the record satisfied §5323(d)/§5328 requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (scope and limits of appellate review of custody factfinding)
- Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (modification of custody under the Custody Act and best-interests standard)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate standard for reviewing custody decisions)