284 A.3d 509
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Child born to Mother and Father; Father had serious mental-health issues and died by suicide in December 2016 when the Child was an infant.
- Paternal grandmother (Grandmother) filed for grandparent custody in 2017; parties entered a 2018 consent order granting supervised partial physical custody every other Friday (visits in Mother’s home).
- Grandmother exercised the supervised visits for ~two years (≈40 visits); in 2020 in-person visits were suspended for COVID and replaced with telephone contact.
- Grandmother filed to modify custody in July 2021 seeking unsupervised partial custody; Mother filed to suspend Grandmother’s contact altogether, arguing lack of bond and that the Child identifies Mother’s fiancé as his father.
- After hearings, trial court granted Grandmother unsupervised partial custody one Saturday per month (10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.); Mother appealed, alleging evidentiary error and misapplication of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(c)(1) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Grandmother/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of additional testimony about Father and suicide | Mother: Court wrongly curtailed testimony about Father’s conduct and its continuing effect on Mother’s mental health and parenting | Court: Allowed core testimony about trauma but excluded collateral, irrelevant, or cumulative history because Grandmother had no role in those events | Court affirmed; no abuse of discretion—trial court permitted relevant testimony and exclusion was not manifestly unreasonable |
| Amount of prior personal contact (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(c)(1)(i)) | Mother: Relationship between Grandmother and Child was insubstantial; award improper absent a substantive bond | Grandmother: Mother agreed to and permitted supervised visits starting 2018, photos and witness testimony show a beneficial relationship; award was modest | Court affirmed; found sufficient prior contact (consent order visits, ~40 visits, positive interactions) and the limited award (7 hrs/month) was reasonable |
| Whether award interferes with parent–child relationship (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(c)(1)(ii)) | Mother: Award interferes with her right to control disclosure about the Child’s biological father and to form a new family with fiancé; stress would cause parental interference | Grandmother: Has respected Mother’s wishes about disclosure, supported Mother and fiancé, would not undermine parent–child relationship (even favors fiancé adopting Child) | Court affirmed; found no interference—Mother retains control over disclosure, Grandmother has complied with Mother’s wishes and promoted parental relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- S.T. v. R.W., 192 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Super. 2018) (scope and standard of appellate review in custody matters)
- Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006) (upholding grandparent custody statute and recognizing state interest in grandparent–child relationships)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (discussing parental rights and grandparent custody under the Child Custody Act)
- J. & S.O. v. C.H., 206 A.3d 1171 (Pa. Super. 2019) (treatment of grandparent standing and when a court may override a fit parent’s decision)
- D.R.L. v. K.L.C., 216 A.3d 276 (Pa. Super. 2019) (burden on grandparents to show award is in child’s best interest and will not interfere with parent–child relationship)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental fundamental rights in third-party visitation context)