S.W.D. v. S.A.R.
96 A.3d 396
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father sought custody and two reliefs: school placement and ratification of an informal custody change; Mother had primary physical custody and shared legal custody with Father.
- Initially, January 8, 2010 order provided shared legal custody and Mother’s primary physical custody; Father had partial physical custody on a 5/2/2/5 schedule (later modified informally).
- In 2012 the parties informally adopted a 5-2-2-5 schedule; in 2013 Father petitioned for special relief seeking school placement with Harvest Baptist Academy and enforcement of the informal custody change.
- Mother enrolled Child in West Hills Primary School without Father’s knowledge, seeking stability and proximity to home; Father preferred Harvest Baptist Academy for proximity and convenience.
- Trial court ordered Child to West Hills Primary for 2013-14, designated Father as a legal guardian, and continued the January 8, 2010 custody schedule; Father appealed challenging schooling and the custody change.
- This Court affirmed schooling ruling, but vacated the custody portion and remanded for a full §5328(a) analysis of all factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school placement was in Child’s best interests | Father argues Harvest Baptist Academy best serves Child’s needs. | Mother argues West Hills Primary is better for stability and education continuity. | Affirmed: West Hills schooling was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the informal custody change was properly considered and whether all §5328(a) factors were addressed | Father contends the informal 5-2-2-5 change should be ratified as the status quo and/or permanence. | Mother contends the change was temporary and not a modification requiring full §5328(a) analysis. | Vacated: remanded for a written, on-the-record §5328(a) analysis addressing all factors on the custody issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (court must apply §5328(a) factors when a form of custody is ordered; mere listing is insufficient)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse of discretion review; best interests; weight of evidence)
- M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discrete issue ancillary to custody may not require full 5328(a) analysis)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (form of custody; require 5328(a) analysis)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (custody factors must be addressed for custody awards)
- Guadagnino v. Montie, 646 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 1994) (adequate notice permitted modification considerations)
- Choplosky v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 1990) (special relief and temporary custody considerations under Rule 1915.13)
- Mass er v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sua sponte modification not allowed; need petition for modification)