T.M.G. v. J.E.G. ( 2015 )

J-S01043-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
T.M.G. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
J.E.G.
Appellee No. 1458 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order August 6, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Civil Division at No(s): 14853-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2015
Appellant, T.M.G. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Appellee, J.E.G.
(“Father”), partial physical custody of their minor children, T.G. and R.G.
(“Children”), three weekends per month, plus one day per week. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.1
____________________________________________
1
Mother did not file a concise statement of errors contemporaneously with
her notice of appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Nevertheless, on
September 4, 2014, Mother filed an amended notice of appeal to include a
Rule 1925 concise statement, which she supplemented on September 18,
2014. Furthermore, the trial court addressed Mother’s claims. Therefore,
we will address Mother’s issues. See J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa.Super.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S01043-15
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN AWARDING
ADDITIONAL PARTIAL CUSTODY TO FATHER IN THAT THE
COURT DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER THE CUSTODY
BEST INTEREST FACTORS SET FORTH IN 23 PA.C.S.
SECTION 5328(A) SPECIFICALLY: (1) WHICH PARTY [IS]
MORE LIKELY TO ENCOURAGE AND PERMIT FREQUENT
AND CONTINUING CONTACT BETWEEN CHILD AND
ANOTHER PARTY[;] (3) THE PARENTAL DUTIES
PERFORMED BY EACH PARTY ON BEHALF OF CHILD[;] (4)
THE NEED FOR STABILITY AND CONTINUITY IN CHILD’S
EDUCATION, FAMILY LIFE AND COMMUNITY LIFE[;] (7)
THE WELL-REASONED PREFERENCE OF CHILD, BASED ON
CHILD’S MATURITY AND JUDGMENT[;] (9) WHICH PARTY
IS MORE LIKELY TO MAINTAIN A LOVING, STABLE,
CONSISTENT AND NURTURING RELATIONSHIP WITH
CHILD ADEQUATE FOR CHILD’S EMOTIONAL NEEDS[;]
(10) WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO ATTEND TO THE
DAILY PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL,
EDUCATIONAL AND SPECIAL NEEDS OF CHILD[;] (13) THE
LEVEL OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ABILITY
OF THE PARTIES TO COOPERATE WITH ONE ANOTHER[;]
[AND] (16) FATHER’S REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN
COUNSELING?
(Mother’s Brief at 5).
When examining a challenge to a custody order, our scope and
standard of review is as follows:
[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is
abuse of discretion. We must accept findings of the trial
court that are supported by competent evidence of record,
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
2010) (explaining failure to file concise statement with notice of appeal in
children’s fast track case constitutes defective notice of appeal; declining to
find waiver of issues for technical violation of procedural rules outlined in
Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) where appellant failed to file Rule 1925 statement
concurrently with notice of appeal but subsequently filed concise statement
pursuant to trial court’s order).
-2-
J-S01043-15
as our role does not include making independent factual
determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of
credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to
the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the
witnesses first-hand. However, we are not bound by the
trial court’s deductions or inferences from its factual
findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court’s
conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of
record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court
only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in
light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.
J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904, 906 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting Collins v.
Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 762,
903 A.2d 1232 (2006)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Elizabeth K.
Kelly, we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 18, 2014, at 4-10) (finding: each
party respects other’s role in Children’s lives and is likely to encourage
continuing contact with other; Mother and Father have each performed basic
parental duties on fairly equal basis since parties’ separation in 2007;
Mother has assumed bulk of responsibility for needs above Children’s basic
necessities, including scheduling and attending parent/teacher conferences
and medical appointments, and providing transportation to and from
extracurricular activities; parties reside approximately four miles apart,
which promotes stability and continuity in community, and insures
-3-
J-S01043-15
maintenance of education regardless of custody schedule; Children have
become accustomed to equally shared custody schedule since parties’
separation; there is value in maintaining equal exposure to each party’s
diverse household; Father’s household provides traditional family unit for
Children, who have extended family in Father’s household; there is no
evidence that either party attempts to turn Children against other party;
both parties are invested in maintaining stable and consistent relationship
with Children; Father and Mother have begun co-parenting counseling; both
parties have attended to Children’s daily needs since separation; Mother
displays high degree of support in Children’s interests, including attending
Children’s events, working at concession stands, and coaching R.G.’s soccer
team; proximity of parties’ residences allows for flexibility in crafting custody
arrangement, which will permit Children to foster strong relationship with
both parties; Father changed his work schedule to reduce his work on
weekends; parties’ ability to work together with regard to changes in
custody schedule demonstrates parties’ ability to cooperate for best interests
of Children; it is in Children’s best interest to spend more time with Mother
during week because she is Children’s primary source of support for
homework and extracurricular activities; it is important to keep Father
involved in Children’s lives, especially now that Father’s new work schedule
allows him greater involvement with Children; given this analysis, court
modified prior equal custody arrangement to increase Father’s weekend
-4-
J-S01043-15
time with Children and increase Mother’s weekday time with Children). The
record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to
disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2015
-5-
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM
Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM