Shropshire, C. v. Shropshire, J.
1156 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2022Background:
- Parties: Christopher (Father) and Jennifer (Mother) divorced; 2017 Consent Order gave joint legal custody and Mother primary physical custody; Father had limited overnight visitation.
- Father has documented mental-health diagnoses (bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety) and a history of impulsive, sometimes threatening behavior; concerns increased in 2020.
- In April–May 2020 Father undertook a cross‑country trip, exhibited manic/disorganized behavior, was the subject of a Section 302 emergency detainment, and received inpatient treatment at a VA hospital.
- Mother filed an emergency custody petition and a petition to modify in May 2020; the trial court ordered supervised visitation and appointed psychologist Bruce Chambers, Ph.D., to conduct a custody evaluation.
- Dr. Chambers concluded Father has serious bipolar illness, was noncompliant with medication, and recommended continued supervised contact until Father follows treatment and demonstrates stability; the trial court credited that opinion.
- On September 3, 2021 the trial court awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody and limited Father to supervised visitation until he complies with recommended treatment; Father appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Mother sole legal and physical custody | Mother argued modification was warranted under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) best‑interests analysis given Father's untreated bipolar disorder and safety concerns | Father argued Mother failed to show he ever endangered the child and that the court misapplied the law (relied on past conduct) | Court affirmed: trial court properly considered §5328 factors, credited expert, found present noncompliance with treatment posed safety risk, and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether limiting Father to supervised visitation and denying unsupervised telephone contact was an abuse of discretion | Supervised visits necessary to protect child pending Father’s compliance with treatment and medication monitoring | Father claimed rule from Rosenberg requires a grave threat and that current conduct did not pose danger | Court affirmed: Rosenberg predated the Custody Act; court gave weighted consideration to safety and relied on expert finding that untreated bipolar disorder warranted supervised contact |
| Whether awarding Mother sole legal custody was improper | Mother asserted legal custody award follows from best‑interest analysis and Father’s impaired decision‑making risk absent treatment | Father argued no evidence he cannot make medical/educational decisions and thus sole legal custody was unnecessary | Court affirmed: trial court applied §5328 factors to legal custody; Father’s noncompliance with treatment and expert opinion supported award |
| Whether trial court erred in finding Mother available to care for child (§5328(a)(12)) | Mother pointed to her long history as primary physical custodian and continuous care, especially since COVID‑19 | Father claimed Mother presented no evidence of availability | Court affirmed: record showed Mother had primary physical custody for years and sufficient evidence supported availability finding |
Key Cases Cited
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard in custody appeals and requirement to consider custody factors)
- In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court's advantage in assessing witness demeanor and credibility)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard that court will disturb custody order only if manifestly unreasonable)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Custody Act governs post‑2011 custody proceedings)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no required level of detail in trial court’s explanation so long as §5328 factors are considered)
- D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. 2016) (best‑interests standard and factors to consider)
- Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 504 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1986) (prior standard on denying visitation for danger to child; court explained it is superseded by the Custody Act)