T.R. v. C.H. Appeal of: C.H., T.R. v. C.H. Appeal of: C.H. No. 406 MDA 2017

Mother (C.H.) had primary custody Oct–Dec 9, 2016, conditioned on obtaining a PFA against her paramour J.S. and preventing the children from seeing him; prior to that paternal grandmother had custody Feb–Oct 2016.
While with Mother the children missed school, were discharged from therapy for missed appointments, and had head lice; children reported seeing drug activity and feared J.S.
On Dec 9, 2016 police arrested Mother and another adult at a trailer where the children were present; Mother sought placement with maternal grandmother but she was found unfit; paternal grandmother petitioned for emergency custody.
After multiple hearings, the trial court awarded shared legal custody to Mother and paternal grandmother but granted primary physical custody to paternal grandmother, with partial visitation for Mother and a no-contact order as to J.S.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to award primary physical custody to paternal grandmother and (2) violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process right to parent (relying on Troxel).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed for nonparent (paternal grandmother) to obtain primary physical custody over a parent	Mother: trial court lacked sufficient clear and convincing evidence to overcome the statutory parental presumption	Court/trial court: paternal grandmother proved by clear and convincing evidence (safety concerns re: J.S., stability, schooling, extended family, ability to meet daily needs)	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; factors favored paternal grandmother and rebutted parental presumption
Whether awarding custody to a nonparent violated Mother’s Fourteenth Amendment right to parent (Troxel)	Mother: trial court interfered with fundamental parental rights without appropriate deference under Troxel	Court: statutory presumption in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5327(b) and trial court’s application provide the special factors Troxel requires	Held: No constitutional violation; trial court applied correct standard and found clear and convincing evidence to rebut presumption

V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
Jordan v. Jackson, 876 A.2d 443 (Pa. Super. 2005) (explaining how a third party must present weighty evidence to overcome parental presumption)
Luminella v. Marchocci, 814 A.2d 711 (Pa. Super. 2002) (inquiry into whether a child’s fear of a third party is founded)
T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001) (appellate courts may not reweigh facts absent unreasonableness or abuse of discretion)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental fundamental right to make child-rearing decisions)