V.P v. v. S.V.
629 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- This is an appeal by Father from an April 7, 2017 custody order after a three-day trial in Allegheny County Family Court; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The trial court found Father engaged in parental alienation: coaching the children against Mother, filing PFAs tactically (including an emergency PFA that prevented Mother’s Christmas visit), and enlisting paternal grandparents to turn the children against Mother.
- Experts (Dr. Rosenblum and Dr. Edwards) agreed Father was the "aligned" parent whose cooperation was necessary for reunification; both recommended gradual restoration of Mother’s contact, and Dr. Rosenblum testified removal from Father could be a last resort.
- The court imposed a stepped custody plan: supervised community weekend visits, followed by gradual unsupervised weekday and weekend time, then resumption of the prior 5-2-2-5 rotation — with a contingency that if Father continued to thwart Mother’s access, custody would shift to Mother (or foster care) and Father would be cut off for 90 days.
- The court ordered individual and family therapy and found Father not credible; it rejected Father’s claims of judicial bias and improper reliance on expert testimony, concluding the order served the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias / recusal | Trial judge was prejudiced, advocated for Mother, improperly questioned witnesses | Court’s questioning was proper clarification; Father waived recusal by not timely moving to recuse | Waived; in any event, no disqualifying bias — questioning permissible and did not show prejudgment |
| Credibility findings | Court disregarded Father, his witnesses, and children; ignored Mother’s alleged abuses and mental health issues | Court found Father’s testimony disingenuous and credited evidence showing alienation; court addressed Mother’s mental-health needs via orders | Credibility determinations supported by record; appellate court defers to trial court findings |
| Expert testimony and reliance | Improper to treat Dr. Edwards as expert; court disregarded Dr. Rosenblum’s views | Court relied primarily on observed interactions and Dr. Rosenblum’s recommendations; any testimony by Dr. Edwards used for facts not determinative expert rule | No reversible error: court considered experts’ input and implemented a gradual plan consistent with their recommendations; did not abnormally rely on prohibited expert opinion |
| Best-interest custody order (including foster-care contingency) | Order contrary to children’s best interests; extreme remedy (removal to foster care) improper | Order tailored to reunification, gradual, therapy-focused; foster-care contingency a last resort if Father continues alienation | Order was within discretion and served children's best interests; contingency steps permissible as narrow last-resort enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 (Pa. 2004) (recusal burden and procedure; movant must show evidence of bias)
- Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discusses judge’s questioning and extra‑judicial source doctrine in recusal analysis)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial remarks during proceedings do not usually support bias claims absent deep‑seated antagonism)
- Jordan v. Jackson, 876 A.2d 443 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony; plaintiff must show prejudice from questioning)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review in custody cases: best interests of the child and deference to trial court credibility findings)