W.J.H. v. D.H., W.J.H. v. D.H. No. 3883 EDA 2016

Background

Mother (W.J.H.) and Father are divorced parents of a 12-year-old daughter who attends school in the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District; parents live about 20 minutes apart.
Prior custody order existed; Mother filed a petition to modify on Jan. 4, 2016 seeking equal custody and a change of the alternating-weekend exchange from Sunday evening to Monday morning.
Trial held Oct. 18, 2016; court conducted an in-camera interview with the child, who was well-adjusted, an excellent student, and active in extracurriculars.
Trial court retained joint legal custody, awarded Father primary physical custody, and granted Mother partial physical custody with a detailed school-year and summer schedule (school-year exchanges remain Sunday evenings; summer exchanges moved to Monday mornings).
Mother appealed, raising four challenges focused on how the trial court weighed factors in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a), and on the court’s credibility findings about Father’s preparation of the child for school.
The Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s factual findings, credibility determinations, and its careful § 5328(a) analysis as supported by the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
1. Whether the court erred in giving the child’s preference (§5328(a)(7)) slight weight for Father	Mother argued the court misapplied/overweighed the child’s preference and that record does not support favoring Father	Father argued child’s preference, assessed for maturity and judgment, favored him and was properly weighed	Court held the trial court’s conclusion was supported by the record and not an abuse of discretion; affirmed.
2. Whether the court erred in finding stability/continuity (§5328(a)(4)) slightly favored Father	Mother argued stability factor did not support Father and should not have been weighed in his favor	Father argued his home better promoted continuity in education, family and community life	Court held trial court’s finding that stability slightly favored Father was supported by its factual findings; affirmed.
3. Whether the court improperly credited Father’s testimony about preparing the child on Sunday nights	Mother argued Father’s claims about reviewing assignments, signing forms, and preparing child were unsupported and should not have been credited	Father offered testimony about his role preparing child for school each Sunday and the importance of consistent start-of-week routines	Court deferred to trial court credibility determinations, finding its crediting of Father reasonable; no abuse of discretion.
4. Whether court’s view that Sunday rushing was caused by Mother’s scheduling was unsupported	Mother claimed court improperly blamed her for Sunday-time pressures and lack of planning	Father and court viewed the scheduled custody framework as creating Sunday time constraints, and Mother’s testimony acknowledged feeling rushed	Court held the trial court’s observation was supported by the record and not erroneous; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate deference to trial court on custody fact-finding and credibility)
Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of review for custody determinations and trial-court findings)
S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial-court conclusions will be accepted unless tantamount to legal error or unreasonable)
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (modification of custody order governed by best-interest standard under Custody Act)