*3 WICKERSHAM, Before MONTEMURO, WIEAND and JJ.
WICKERSHAM, Judgе: Appellant, Rinehimer, Dennis R. appeals from a custody and visitation order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.
Appellant children, is the father of two minor Shaun Kevin Rinehimer. The are 3 and 2. presently ages At the time appeal, Rinehimer, apрellant and Judith Shaun’s herein, Kevin’s mother and appellee were in the process of obtaining a divorce. Since the date of separation, shortly birth, before the-younger boy’s the boys have lived with their mother in the home of their maternal grandparents.
The pаrties entered into an agreement custo- concerning visitation, dy and incorporated which was an into order on 7,May 13, 1982, 1982. On December father filed a petition to A modify order. master’s hearing fol- lowed, resulting orders, in two 19, interim dated January 1983 and February 1983, providing partiаl for the father. The matter was scheduled for review and further hearings 12, 1983, 1983. May May On its lower court issued final filed Appellant order. father order, exceptions to that several which were allowed court, Appellant and the rest dismissed. filed this timely order appeаl custody-visitation to both the final dismissing the order his court exceptions. lower has provided very thorough opinions, us with two one dated 1983 and the dated August June second Appellant not argues grant primary physical with the mother, to the but rather with the amount and given of time is pеriods partial custody. he Specifically, appellant following raises the issues before us:
I. Whether the lower erred in establishing court schedule effectively prohibits from Father-Appellant taking his minor sons to services church, his thereby at him from precluding them exрosing faith, to formal of his practices which differs from that of Mother-Appellee.
II. Whether the lower erred or its abused discre- in failing grant tion to Father-Appellant periods partial evidence, consistent with particularly of both expert recommendations witnesses who testified at the hearing.
III. Whether the in restricting lower court erred Fa- ther-Appellant one day period seven of continuous partial custody/visitation for the entire year.
Brief for Appellant at 12.
Our of scope review child cases was custody W., recently 39, defined in In re Donna 325 472 Pa.Super. (1984) (en banc). 635 A.2d of scope “The our review is broad; accept fact, we must the trial court’s of findings evidence, unless are unsupported by the on but those facts we must make such order as our independent judg persuades right Id., ment us and justice dictatе.” 325 42, Pa.Superior 472 Ct. at A.2d at 636. This scope broad of does not nullify review the long-established principle that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to be
450 before by judge determined testimony can best be
whom they appeared. Id.1 the lower partial established schedule- right
court has basically provides that from Wednesday evening of his sons 5:00 evening p.m. from p.m. every Friday 5:00-8:00 for a provides The order also Saturday p.m. until at 8:00 July, plus provi- partial custody every continuous week of argues that birthdays. Appellant holidays sions on eve- Saturday terminates period because his his sons to taking from nings p.m., precluded at 8:00 he is in turn mornings, Sunday services at his church practices to the formal right expose denies his them his faith.2 involving all cases
It is well established
is the
inter
consideration
best
custody,
paramount
child
are
child. All other considerations
ests and welfare of the
intellectual, mor
child’s physical,
deemed subordinate to the
Davis,
110,
al,
502 Pa.
465
well-being.
In re
spiritual
330,
(1983);
G.D.H.,
464
Pa.Super.
318
A.2d 614
K.L.H. v.
Mason, 316
462
(1983);
Pa.Super.
A.2d 1368
Hall v.
217, 407
(1983);
Pa.Super.
268
Garrity,
A.2d 843
v.
Garrity
1, 395
(1979);
Pa.Super.
Trefsgar Trefsgar,
A.2d 1323
v.
matter and
(1978). Religion
important
A.2d 273
is an
in child
mat
some consideration
given
should be
G.D.H.,
ters,
supra;
it is not determinative. K.L.H. v.
Ackerman,
Pa.
v.
ex rel. Ackerman
Commonwealth
(1964);
ex
In case, the instant specifically lower court found that testimony no presented whatsoever was that showed either religion involved—Roman or Catholicism Lutheranism —was (Lower harmful op., to Shaun or Kevin. ct. at June n 3). The record supports findings also the court’s that: appellant goes can,” to his church he “when but not on a basis; regular appellant did not or practice attend services his religion when he was with living appellee; appellee attends her her services in church week takes the her; boys parish priest appellee’s personally recalled their presence in church about three times per month; the boys baptized were Roman Catholics and had attended Catholic lives; services with their mother all their appel- lant’s desire to boys take the to his church a prospec- was tive request desire not a to continue a prac- beneficial them; tice with objection being had no the boys to raised as Catholics until old enough up were to make minds; their own appellant did not wish to change what appellee doing was in reference religion; appellant only to expose desired to able to tо his own réligious beliefs. The court also found that the issue of religious training and church attendance not prime was motivation parent, either gain exerted to chiefly leverage over the other in seeking custody, that the young age (then 2) the children aged 1 and made it doubtful that exposure any religion would a profound lasting have or effect them. upon
Accepting binding,3 these as must decide findings we whether the correctly applied trial court to these facts the pertinent consideration, principles Upon of law. careful we find that the scrupulously lower court did so. court any avoided comment in parent’s result one would being beliefs favored the other. The court over no placed prohibition upon against taking either the parent faith, discussing religious children to services of his or her beliefs, or in other the to their any way exposing boys Granted, respective appellant effectively prevent faiths. is taking Sunday morning ed from his sons to services most of year. appellant agreed the But himself stated that he the boys should be raised as Catholics until were older. find that the schedule the father partial custody We for was designed religious viewpoint, not to frustrate his designed in the best interests of the solely boys establish ing partial custody. a stable schedule of
Appellant possible also raises error in thе failure of the grant lower court to of periods partial custody consistent with the recommendations of the what experts. Basically, appellant requested, denied, and was was two consecutive overnight (i.e. of periods partial custody per week both than Friday Saturday nights), just rather one. Sternlieb, Both Dr. and Dr. recom- psychologists, Day mended that the have a boys regular, predictable, relationship consistent with the father. Neither doctor stat- ed given partial that must be boys both for the entire weekend each and week in order to develop regular that and consistent Dr. relationship. Stern- lieb, appellant’s stated that expert, appellant should have basis, of the on a boys weekly which would include a full 24 hour day. When asked whether or not it disadvantageous would to visit findings Our dеtermination of whether the trial court’s of fact are supported by complicated the record is made more because the trial such, findings made no court of fact as but delivered its decisions in However, enough plain findings narrative form. it is that the of fact implied supported by court’s narrative are the record. See In re W., (1984). Pa.Super. Donna 472 A.2d 635 father the weekend, it entire Dr. would not. Sternlieb said The mother’s noted Shaun expert, Day, Dr. that exhibited signs separation from his She recom- anxiety mother.4 mended only per initially, assuming one week overnight that that cooperated, schedule and the parents went well possible future of the expansion visits.
The lower to consider obligated court was testimony experts, obligated two but was not delegate to these experts responsibility making its E.g. Jones, decision. In (1968); re A.2d 356 Brueckner v. 84 A.2d City Pittsburgh, 368 Pa. (1951). We find considered the carefully *7 testimony of experts, both and fashioned an order consist ent the with recommendations both that the experts boys a regular, needed predictable, and consistent visitation schedule. The extremely young court considered the age children, the plus the fact that had most of their lived lives young only. just prior with their mother It to the hearing appellant any first this case that had overnight all, at only and then with the child. older We also court, note, as did the overnights lower that should two every appellee precluded weekend be granted, would any from weekend with her activities children. the parents
Given fact that the cannot apparently commu- nicate about let alone the welfare of anything, mutual children, experts’ and that the opinions concerning future expansion partial custody in the was predicated father upon necessity parents the that the be able to com- would municate with each and other ease the transition for the children, we find no in the aрpellant’s error court’s denial of for request expansion. immediate
Finally, appellant complains of the lower court’s fail ure to allow him an period partial extended custody his sons the during Christmas holiday season. testimony Appellee’s that adaрt showed the children not in fact did question, to the visitation schedule as witnessed Shaun’s with- difficulty sleeping following overnight drawal visits with his father. weekly partial to his gives
order in addition appellant, the second week of custody during custody periods, partial holidays, including of each certain Christmas July year. On and on p.m., from 1:00-7:00 Day, given partial custody he is parents the are including Day, other New Year’s holidays, p.m. Appellant’s alternate from 10:00 a.m.—7:00 through Sat- evening Friday night regular Wednesday season. during holiday continues night custody urday or so around However, requests complete week appellant he because, employment, the nature of his due to Christmas the Christmas season. during has a vacation to extend that it saw no need explained The lower court appellant this as has exten- custody during period, partial his sons each and week custody of weekly partial sive however, parties that the expected, The court year. to extend the amicably arrange partial should could and holidays. around the We echo custody periods on their own unlikely given it seems the con- expectation, although communication between the animosity tinued and lack of court’s We find no need to disturb lower parties. determination, noted that Appellant’s expert however. own than longer any contact betweеn regularity regularly up scheduled visit would break *8 psychologists important. and that both deemed consistency to He then went on to state that he considered it neither advantage disadvantage their nor to their to be with their time, although father for extended it was to pеriod an their mother and father on advantage to be with both The record birthdays holidays. such as and major events for appellee opposed appellant’s request further notes that the season be- partial custody during continual Christmas is a for and she also special parents cause it time both time possible wanted to be with her sons for as much as find to a during holidays. the We this reasonable children, of the position. Again, given young ages schedule, need a and the regular, predictable to maintain amount of сontact has with his sons over appellant already the holidays, we see no reason extend during the Christmas season.
We feel that the for lower established a schedule partial custody which is consistent the best interest with and welfare of Kevin, Shaun and provides сonsistent and between continuing relationship and his sons.
Order affirmed. J.,
WIEAND, concurring filed a opinion.
WIEAND, Judge, concurring:
I agree that the order majority trial court should be affirmed. in my For reasons set forth Dissenting Opinion W., in re In Donna 325 Pa.Super. (1984), disagree A.2d 635 I that this Court should make an independent determination in this case.
correbt
cases,
stаndard of
review child
as stated
by the
Supreme Court
ex rel.
Commonwealth
Robinson
Robinson,
v.
(1984)
Pa.
v. Restaurant, John SCIOLI Gene’s Inc. and Sarah Capanna Joseph Capanna.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of May 10,
Argued 1984.
Filed Dec.