M.D.W. v. M.E.W. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J-S10013-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    M.D.W.                                     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant               :
    :
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    M.E.W.                                     :   No. 1612 MDA 2019
    Appeal from the Order Entered September 6, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
    Civil Division at No(s): FC-2013-0021022-DC
    BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                   FILED: MAY 11, 2020
    M.D.W. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered in the Court of
    Common Pleas of Lycoming County, which awarded Father and M.E.W.
    (“Mother”) shared legal custody of the parties’ son, M.W. (“Child”), Mother
    primary physical custody, and Father partial physical custody. We affirm.
    Mother and Father divorced in December 2013. Prior to the custody
    order on appeal, the parties’ custody of their two children, their daughter,
    A.W.,1 born in August 2002, and Child, born in March 2005, was governed by
    an agreed custody order dated August 8, 2016. See Order, 8/8/16. The order
    permitted Mother to relocate with the children from Pennsylvania to Montclair,
    New Jersey, and required Child to attend a private school there (“the School”).
    See
    id. at 1-2.
    ____________________________________________
    1Neither Father nor Mother raises any issue with regard to the legal or physical
    custody of A.W.
    J-S10013-20
    During the school year, the order provided Father with physical custody
    of Child every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. through Sunday at
    5:00 p.m., as well as six days of custodial time in Montclair, New Jersey. See
    id. at 2-3.
    During summer, the order provided that Child would primarily
    reside with Father, while granting Mother physical custody of Child for two full
    weeks and three weekends. See
    id. The order
    also set forth a holiday schedule
    and provided Father and Mother with shared legal custody of Child. See
    id. at 1-4.
    On January 22, 2018, Mother filed a petition for modification of custody,
    asserting that it would be in Child’s best interest to equally divide Child’s
    school breaks between Mother and Father. By order entered May 15, 2018,
    the trial court appointed Attorney Patricia Shipman to serve as Child’s
    guardian ad litem.
    After several hearings, the trial court entered its custody order,
    awarding the parties shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody,
    and Father partial physical custody. See Order, 9/6/19, at 1-2. The order
    required Child to continue attending the School, and granted Father two
    weekends of physical custody per month during the school year, with one
    weekend per month in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and one in the Montclair,
    New Jersey, area, so Child would “be able to participate in activities with his
    peers.”   See
    id. at 2.
    During summer, the order granted Father primary
    physical custody, subject to Mother’s two weeks of partial physical custody,
    and permitted either parent to unilaterally enroll Child in camps or similar
    -2-
    J-S10013-20
    activities. See
    id. at 2-3.
    Moreover, the order required Child to be enrolled in
    counseling and afforded Mother the right to select the counselor and to give
    Father notice of the selection. See
    id. at 5.
    Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors
    complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On
    appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review:
    1. Did the trial court err in not granting Appellant primary
    physical custody of the minor child when the evidence and
    application of the custody factors warranted the change in
    custody and school district?
    2. Did the trial court err in ordering in unclear and ambiguous
    terms that Appellant is to exercise one weekend per month in
    Williamsport, PA and one weekend per month in Montclair, NJ?
    3. Did the trial court err in allowing the child to attend any and
    all camps over the summer so long as he has one parent’s
    consent rather than requiring agreement by both parties as is
    set forth in the legal custody provisions of the custody order?
    4. Did the trial court err in permitting Appellee to unilaterally
    choose a counselor for the minor child which is contrary to the
    legal custody provisions set forth in the custody order?
    Father’s Brief at 5-6.
    In custody cases under the Child Custody Act, (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 5321-5340, our standard of review is as follows:
    In reviewing a custody order, our 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, 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
    -3-
    J-S10013-20
    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.
    C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 
    45 A.3d 441
    , 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
    We have stated:
    [t]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters
    should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature
    of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on
    the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained
    by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding
    cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed
    record.
    Ketterer v. Seifert, 
    902 A.2d 533
    , 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Jackson
    v. Beck, 
    858 A.2d 1250
    , 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
    In M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 
    989 A.2d 11
    (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc), we stated
    the following regarding an abuse of discretion standard.
    Although we are given a broad power of review, we are
    constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating
    the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of
    judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly unreasonable
    as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is abused. An abuse
    of discretion is also made out where it appears from a review of
    the record that there is no evidence to support the court’s findings
    or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence.
    Id. at 18-19
    (quotation and citations omitted).
    Section 5338 of the Act provides that, upon petition, a trial court may
    modify a custody order if it serves the best interests of the child. See 23
    Pa.C.S.A. § 5338. Section 5328(a) sets forth the best interest factors that the
    -4-
    J-S10013-20
    trial court must consider. See E.D. v. M.P., 
    33 A.3d 73
    , 80-81, n.2 (Pa. Super.
    2011). Trial courts are required to consider “[a]ll of the factors listed in
    section 5328(a) . . . when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 
    33 A.3d 647
    , 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in original).
    Although the court is required to give “weighted consideration to those
    factors which affect the safety of the child” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
    5328(a), we have acknowledged that the amount of weight a court gives any
    one factor is almost entirely discretionary. M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 
    63 A.3d 331
    ,
    339 (Pa. Super. 2013). Moreover, “[i]t is within the trial court’s purview as
    the finder of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in
    each particular case.”
    Id. (citing A.D.
    v. M.A.B., 
    989 A.2d 32
    , 35-36 (Pa.
    Super. 2010)).
    Section 5328(a) of the Act provides a non-exclusive list of factors that
    a court should consider when evaluating custody:
    (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit
    frequent and continuing contact between the child and another
    party.
    (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or
    member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued
    risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can
    better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of
    the child.
    (2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and
    (2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with
    protective services).
    -5-
    J-S10013-20
    (3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf
    of the child.
    (4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s
    education, family life and community life.
    (5) The availability of extended family.
    (6) The child’s sibling relationships.
    (7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the
    child’s maturity and judgment.
    (8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the
    other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where
    reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child
    from harm.
    (9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,
    consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for
    the child’s emotional needs.
    (10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily
    physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special
    needs of the child.
    (11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
    (12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability
    to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
    (13) The level of conflict between the parties and the
    willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one
    another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another
    party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with
    that party.
    (14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or
    member of a party’s household.
    (15) The mental and physical condition of a party or
    member of a party’s household.
    -6-
    J-S10013-20
    (16) Any other relevant factor.
    23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328.
    This Court has explained that while the explicit desires of the child are
    not controlling,
    such wishes do constitute an important factor that must be
    carefully considered in determining the child’s best interest. The
    weight to be attributed to a child’s testimony can best be
    determined by the judge before whom the child appears. The
    child’s preference must be based upon good reasons and his or
    her maturity and intelligence must also be considered.
    Ketterer v. 
    Seifert, supra
    (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The
    significance placed on the preference of the child who is at the center of the
    custody dispute is similarly within the discretion of the trial judge.” Masser
    v. Miller, 
    913 A.2d 912
    , 920 (Pa. Super. 2006). Ultimately, “[w]hen a trial
    court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is paramount.”
    S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 
    96 A.3d 396
    , 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
    Initially, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to award him
    primary physical custody of Child during the school year. See Father’s Brief
    at 14. In particular, Father faults the trial court’s analysis of custody best
    interest factors one (encouraging contact with other parent), four (stability),
    seven (Child’s preference), nine (emotional needs), and ten (daily needs).
    With respect to factor one, Father argues that the trial court erred in
    concluding this factor was neutral because he encouraged Child’s contact with
    Mother and accommodated Mother’s requests for schedule changes. See
    id. at 19-20.
    Father argues that Mother has not reciprocated. See
    id. at 20-21.
    -7-
    J-S10013-20
    Accordingly, Father asserts that factor one should have favored him. See
    id. With respect
    to factor four, Father contends that this factor should have
    favored him rather than Mother because of his long-term ties to his
    community, and Mother’s various residences and her plan to move to Florida.
    See
    id. at 21-24.
    Further, Father relies on the quality of his local school
    system as compared to the School. See
    id. at 24-25.
    Moreover, Father faults
    the trial court’s focus on Child’s education in its analysis. See
    id. at 26-27.
    With respect to factor seven, Father argues the trial court improperly
    disregarded Child’s preference to move to Montoursville, Pennsylvania. See
    id. at 27-30.
    Regarding factor nine, Father contends the trial court erred by
    focusing on his decision to delay his wedding to his fiancée, K.G. See
    id. at 30-31.
    Additionally, Father argues that the testimony of Child and the GAL
    establish that this factor should be equal or favor Father. See
    id. at 30-31.
    With regard to factor ten, Father asserts the trial court should have concluded
    this factor was equal rather than “slightly favoring” Mother because Father
    meets Child’s educational needs and cares for Child. See
    id. at 31-32.
    At the conclusion of the August 23, 2019, hearing, the trial court
    announced its evaluation of the custody best interest factors on-the-record.
    As pertinent to Father’s appeal, the court stated,
    THE COURT: Let me say a couple things, generally, here.
    First of all, I want to commend each of you, [A]ttorney Dinges and
    [A]ttorney Protasio, for, as always, your performances. You both
    are very, very skilled, experienced family law practitioners. Your
    clients are very fortunate to have each of you as attorneys and I
    love having you be in court because you do thorough jobs and
    -8-
    J-S10013-20
    save the [c]ourt a lot of work and I appreciate that very much.
    There are lots of attorneys who practice family law who don’t know
    what they are doing so I commend you for that.
    I also commend Tricia Shipman for one of the most thorough
    GAL reports I’ve ever seen and I can’t imagine how much time she
    spent with the children in this case and I really can’t think of a
    situation down in my home district where we’ve had that kind of
    comprehensive GAL report. She did a thorough job so I’m grateful
    for that.
    One other comment. I’m very sorry we did not have the
    participation of [A.W.;] I think it leaves a hole in the information
    that the [c]ourt should have. But since all of you are in the position
    that she should not be disturbed, I’m not going to subpoena the
    child to come in here against her will that has to be. I think there’s
    some unanswered questions that only she could have answered.
    I’ll tell you what the driver is here and I’ll go through the
    custody factors. The driver to me is the educational piece and I
    really responded to what [A]ttorney Dinges said about, you know,
    trying something that could be an experiment.
    We know for a fact -- and I’ll go through the factors -- we
    know for a fact that the child has been with mom since 2016, living
    with mom in New Jersey with her being the primary caretaker
    during that very important part of the time of the year where the
    child is in school.
    We also know an awful lot about [the School] and I want to
    say this, I think the information on the Montoursville High School
    is very impressive. It’s -- I think it’s a superb school from the
    things I’ve heard and seen in the testimony but I think for this
    child the continuation at [the School] is very important and I’ll tell
    you why I say that when I get to that factor.
    So what’s going to happen here is nothing is changing other
    than, perhaps, tweaking a bit on the periods of physical custody.
    One thing I didn’t tell you was that --and I think this is true -- that
    [Child] said that he was not concerned about coordinating times
    with [A.W.] for visits to family. He felt that [A.W.] was agile
    enough, my word, to work things out so that she could be with
    [Child] when they wanted to be together and he also pointed out
    that she’s going to be an adult in the not so distant future, two
    years from now, and she’ll be able to implement whatever she
    wants in terms of spending time with [Child].
    -9-
    J-S10013-20
    Let me go down through the custody factors as I see them.
    Factor 1 – [] I will ask the Court Reporter to make a
    transcript[] of this which I’ll attach to my findings -- which party
    is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing
    contact between the child and the other party. I don’t see that as
    a problem. I agree with the Guardian Ad Litem on that.
    ***
    Continuing on with the parental duties, factor 3 -- excuse
    me[,] let’s go to factor 4, the need for stability and continuity in
    the child’s education, family life and community life. We know that
    [Child] has been with [M]other for the past several years so that
    continuing his residence with [M]other during the school year does
    continue the stability and continuity in his education, family life
    and community life.
    We grant that [Child] is very familiar with life in
    Williamsport; he lived here for a period of time, he has friends
    here. I don’t see that anything we’re going to do is going to
    prevent him from continuing with those friendships.
    This is -- the problem with doing a custody case like this is
    that you’re making a decision, although I think the education piece
    is a big factor, in all other respects when you weigh these factors
    and favor against one parent or the other, sometimes you’re
    dealing with just a hair line [sic] difference that really doesn’t
    amount to anything.
    I just note that we talk about stability and continuity, there
    was testimony from [Father] and [K.G.], they have been together
    for two years, they have been in a -- living together for two years,
    they’ve been in a relationship for four years. I don’t know what to
    make of the fact that there was this -- what’s the word I want,
    failed or canceled -- we’ll call it a canceled marriage plan and that
    nothing further has happened with that. I mean, it’s undeniable
    that [Mother] is remarried and it would appear to me is in a very
    successful marriage. Again, this is just a minor factor but it is a
    difference between the two families, not something that really tips
    it either way for me but I do note that it was a difference.
    ***
    Number 7, well-reasoned preference of the child based on
    the child’s maturity and judgment. We do note that this is one of
    - 10 -
    J-S10013-20
    17 factors, we had a point when if [Child] had said something
    different from what he said today at the day we first -- the day we
    first got together,[2] I don’t know what the outcome would have
    been, whether the parties would have made an agreement to shift
    the custody, but turns out that that was not truly [] what he
    wanted. He wanted to be in the Montoursville High School. I don’t
    feel that his reasons for doing that are based on sound educational
    needs and I’ll talk more about that when I talk about [the School].
    Class size, that is just one thing. So, his preference is recognized,
    I think he spoke honestly about it, but as I noted to you, it was
    not about which parent he wanted to live with or what school he
    wanted to go to.
    ***
    Number 9, which party is more likely to maintain a loving,
    stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child
    adequate for the child’s emotional and physical needs. I agree with
    the GAL on this and I think [Child] has demonstrated in his
    statement to me he’d be fine living either place. He has -- and
    that, to me, is a great credit to the parents who made him feel
    comfortable.
    Again, I am getting into these tiny little micro factors. I’m
    just -- I’m curious about why [Father] and [K.G.] have not
    solemnized their relationship. [Mother] is apparently successfully
    married and has a relationship with [Stepfather, J.O.,] which is
    locked in by virtue of the marriage contract.
    Number 10, which party is more likely to attend to the daily
    physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special
    needs of the child. Mom has a track record on this because she’s
    got the primary custody.
    One thing that’s curious to me, and I think Miss Protasio
    indicated, I don’t know why the parents aren’t coming through
    better with monitoring the homework piece. How do you not know
    that a child has or hasn’t done homework? Show me what you
    did and look up what the assignment is on the web page and you
    make a match and you ride hard. I don’t think that [Father’s]
    ____________________________________________
    2The trial court spoke with Child off-the-record before the start of the first
    hearing. The court reported to the parties that Child indicated his educational
    needs were best met by attending the School, while his social needs would be
    best met by living in Williamsport. See N.T., 7/22/19, at 5.
    - 11 -
    J-S10013-20
    statement that he takes [Child’s] word for it when he says he has
    no homework is the way to go. My goodness, I would never take
    a child’s word for that. I would make sure the child show[ed] me
    that that wasn’t true or I’d investigate it myself.
    So both parents need to, I think, step up more on this
    homework question. Again, when I talk about [the School] I’ll
    flush that out. So, mom has the greater opportunities to do
    something with this and I can say why is the child not doing better,
    I’m talking about that now. So I’ll give mother a vote on that one
    in her favor slightly and also give her a vote on factor 4 about
    stability.
    ***
    And, of course, the recommendation of [the] Guardian Ad
    Litem was that the child stay where he is and continue at [the
    School]. And Miss Shipman, after interviewing the child, said that
    I could report to you -- and she’s now back in the courtroom --
    and her recommendation has not changed. To me it’s all about the
    educational piece and I reread – I reread the grades, I reread the
    emails between the teachers and the parents and the level of
    concern and interest on the part of [the School] in all dimensions
    of [Child’s] persona is impressive to me. And if this child is going
    to be successful educationally, it’s going to happen at a school like
    [the School].
    Why is he not doing better? Once upon a time he did okay.
    I think that definitely this custody case is wearing on his attention
    span, on his ability to focus, he said that to me although he tried
    to blend in some family losses and I can understand that. But I do
    think if there’s a recipe for success it’s going to be with [the
    School].
    One thing I noted was that the lowest final grade he got was
    a C minus. Under the scoring system given by [the School], and
    we like to have him get all A’s and in the past he’s seen that, that’s
    still a satisfactory grade under the criteria of [the School]. He has
    only one C minus which is in algebra.
    Several teachers said he needs to reach out for help. There
    are lots of suggestions from teachers about how he can improve
    and the parents need to be right on top of that at all times.
    I already commented about the fact that the homework is
    not getting done, assignments are not getting turned in. Just as
    - 12 -
    J-S10013-20
    an example, the algebra teacher said it’s important for him to seek
    help. English teacher, same thing. The history teacher said that
    he has difficulty in completing assignments. Science teacher, less
    successful in completing assignments. Spanish talks about
    needing to practice grammar, review class notes. I would think
    that’s something that [Mother] and [Father] could well inquire
    into. I don’t know if either of them speaks Spanish but doing drills
    and making him do drills I think apparently is something that
    needs to happen.
    The media arts teacher said [his] project was late again so
    this business about not turning things in, not getting work done,
    I don’t see why that can’t be fixed by the parents and you can’t
    take [Child’s] word for it, you’ve got to be on top of it. I just don’t
    see that a switch of the schools is going to solve the problems. He
    can still turn things in late and not complete things and not do
    homework and my concern is that while Montoursville certainly is
    a great school, I don’t want [to] play games and take a chance on
    something that hasn’t been tested yet.
    And he said – [Child] said he’ll be perfectly happy if I say
    that he stays at [the School] and that’s what I’m going to do. I
    don’t want to tamper with what has a better, I think, opportunity
    for his success given that this is where he’s been, this is what we
    know. He’s never been in public school before and as good as
    Montoursville might be, I just I don’t have the confidence that
    [Child] will be able to take charge of things in the way that he
    tries to tell me he can.
    So, what’s going to happen is this, the existing -- we’re short
    on time -- existing custody order of 2016 will remain in effect. I’ll
    tinker with it a bit to try to improve some of the things and I’ll add
    a counseling requirement. In the final order I’ll also -- I thought
    about ordering a provision for parental counseling. I’ll be thinking
    about that. I think that’s hard to implement given how far away
    the parties are from each other but they possibly could do
    something individually. We’ll see about that. So that’s where we
    are. [Child’s] school begins the day after Labor Day and that’s
    where he’s going to be. And we’ll issue an order not right away
    because I am away for most of next week but we’ll get an order
    out to that effect.
    N.T., 8/23/19, at 182-197.
    - 13 -
    J-S10013-20
    The record supports the trial court’s conclusions and analysis. Mother
    testified at length regarding her belief that it would be preferable to have
    Father exercise one weekend of his physical custody time each month during
    the school year in Montclair, New Jersey. See N.T., 7/22/19, at 14. Mother
    asserted that by exercising custody in New Jersey, Child could participate in
    activities with his peers. See
    id. at 15-16.
    Mother thought this was workable,
    particularly because Father owns an airplane and flew back and forth
    previously. See
    id. at 14-15.
    Mother testified that it took less than three hours
    to drive from Williamsport to Montclair, and under one hour to fly. See
    id. Mother claimed
    that Child was frustrated with the current custody
    arrangement because he missed out on activities with his friends in Montclair.
    See
    id. at 70.
    Mother explained that the goal of the proposed schedule was
    to have Child travel less and “make the schedule about the child not the
    parent, to integrate the parent into the child’s lifestyle and to introduce the
    parent into the peer group of the kid and not make it about the parent, make
    it about the kid.” See
    id. at 40.
    Mother believed the schedule would allow
    Father to be more involved with Child’s life in New Jersey.3 See
    id. at 15-16.
    Although Father asserted that Mother spent most of her weekends away from
    ____________________________________________
    3 While Mother lives in New Jersey during the school year, she is a
    Pennsylvania resident as she resides at a Pennsylvania address 184 days per
    year. See N.T., 7/22/19, at 32-33. Mother’s husband testified that he and
    Mother eventually planned to buy a house in Florida. See N.T., 7/23/19, at
    285-86.
    - 14 -
    J-S10013-20
    New Jersey, Mother testified that she is home in New Jersey for approximately
    half of her weekends with Child. See N.T., 8/23/19, at 10-11. Further, Mother
    asserted that Child is involved in activities at school and has a good group of
    friends. See
    id. at 12-13,
    34-35.
    With respect to summer, Mother testified that Child should attend a
    three-week theater camp and Father and Mother should split the remaining
    time so that Child could spend time with his friends in New Jersey. See N.T.,
    7/22/19, at 16-17. While Mother asserted that she and Father should decide
    on camp and divide the remaining time together, she did not believe that they
    had a good enough relationship to accomplish that. See
    id. at 18.
    Accordingly,
    Mother testified that she wanted either parent to be able to sign Child up for
    camp, but explained that her intent was not to be punitive by, for example,
    having one parent sign Child up for 12 weeks of camp. See
    id. at 43-44.
    Mother opined that Child should continue to attend the School. See
    id. at 26.
    Mother further testified that Child attended private school starting in
    first grade, and that the School provided a small class size. See
    id. at 28-29.
    Mother expressed concerns that Montoursville Area High School had a student
    to teacher ratio of 28-1.4       See
    id. at 45-46.
    Mother believed the personal
    ____________________________________________
    4 Alyson Waldman, the director of admissions and financial aid at THE
    SCHOOL, testified that the School has a challenging, engaging, and innovative
    academic program that stresses personal responsibility. See N.T., 7/23/19,
    at 84-87. Daniel Taormina, the principal of Montoursville Area High School,
    testified that the student to teacher ratio is 15 to 1 and that the school offers
    - 15 -
    J-S10013-20
    attention at the School was important because Child is easily distracted. See
    id. at 28-30.
    Further, Mother testified that Child needed to attend counseling
    to develop “self advocacy skills.” See
    id. at 23.
    Father testified that he believed that it was in Child’s best interests to
    stay with Mother in New Jersey until Child told the GAL that he wanted to live
    with Father. See
    id. at 122;
    N.T., 7/23/19, at 60-61. Father testified that
    Child’s grades declined throughout the year for the sixth and seventh grades.
    See N.T., 7/23/19, at 52-54. Father also expressed concerns that Child does
    not do homework while living with Mother. See
    id. at 13-15.
    Father asserted
    that Mother did not do enough to get Child to do his homework, although he
    acknowledged that both parties could do a better job about punishing Child
    for not performing schoolwork. See
    id. at 93-98.
    With respect to the parties’
    ability to work together in general, Father acknowledged there are times when
    they do not get along, but he believed they cooperated better than was being
    portrayed. See N.T., 7/22/19, at 116-17.
    After Child expressed a desire to move, Father took Child on a tour of
    Montoursville Area High School, which Father described as a public school
    offering a high caliber education. See N.T., 7/23/19, at 6-13. Father believed
    that Child’s schooling issues at the School were related to his lack of
    ____________________________________________
    a number of advanced placement classes and elective opportunities, including
    the opportunity to attend classes at local colleges. See
    id. at 180-82.
    - 16 -
    J-S10013-20
    accountability, and asserted that Child could successfully transition to public
    school. See
    id. at 14-15,
    20-21. Father noted that Child’s transition would be
    aided by his numerous friends in Montoursville. See
    id. at 28-29.
    With respect to Mother’s contention that Father should travel to New
    Jersey to exercise custody, Father observed that Mother travels to
    Pennsylvania for the vast majority of her custodial weekends, so Child
    generally does not participate in activities in New Jersey. See
    id. at 26-28.
    Based on Father’s calculation of the time Mother spent traveling, Father noted
    that if he traveled to Montclair for nine weekends a year, he would spend twice
    as many weekends a year in Montclair with Child compared to Mother. See
    id. at 27-28.
    Father asserted that, under the current schedule, Child did not
    miss any activities with friends in New Jersey because Father and Mother
    generally swapped weekends. See N.T., 7/22/19, at 104-05. Although Father
    did not object to occasionally travelling to New Jersey, he did not want the
    order to require him to do so one weekend per month because Child might
    wish to travel back to Williamsport to see his friends. See
    id. at 108-10.
    Father testified that after Mother gave him a list of potential counselors
    for Child, Father took several weeks to contact them. See N.T., 7/23/19, 72-
    3. This delay prompted a follow-up e-mail from Mother threatening to
    unilaterally pick the counselor. See
    id. at 74.
    Father explained that he
    eventually contacted the counselors and none would agree to counsel Child.
    See N.T., 7/22/19, at 119-20. Father asserted that he was not against Child
    - 17 -
    J-S10013-20
    attending counseling, but claimed that he requested that the parties agree
    that the counselor would not become involved in the litigation. See
    id. at 118-
    19.
    With respect to camp, Father believed that both parents should be
    required to agree before signing Child up for a camp, explaining his position
    as follows:
    I think we need to try to work it out. That’s just life. I just think,
    though, the default of only one parent needs to have approval is
    an absolute recipe for disaster for that child approaching the
    parent who he thinks he will get the correct answer from, he or
    she.
    Id. at 101.
    However, Father also testified that he unilaterally signed Child up
    for a gaming camp because it occurred during his custodial time. See N.T.,
    7/23/19, at 155-56.
    Father further testified regarding his relationship with K.G., asserting
    that he and K.G. were going to marry on December 31, 2017, but decided not
    to move forward at that time. See
    id. at 107-08.
    While Father and K.G. were
    still engaged, Father explained that they decided to call a “time out” with
    respect to scheduling the ceremony. See
    id. at 108.
    Father acknowledged
    that K.G.’s daughter moved in with her grandmother at about the same time
    that he and K.G. decided not to get married, but suggested that the issues
    were not related. See
    id. at 108-12.
    Further, Father conceded that K.G.
    previously attended an alcohol rehabilitation program, and that she still
    drinks. See
    id. - 18
    -
    J-S10013-20
    Patricia Shipman, the GAL, expressed concerns about Child’s ability to
    take responsibility for his education and testified that she believed that it
    served Child’s best interests to attend the School because of the amount of
    oversight. See
    id. at 197-98.
    Attorney Shipman believed that Child’s stability
    in education weighed in favor of Mother. See
    id. at 219-20.
    Further, Attorney
    Shipman testified that Father should not be required to go to New Jersey every
    other weekend, asserting that it was more important for Child to inform Father
    about his activities and for Father to accommodate them. See
    id. at 205-06.
    Attorney Shipman questioned whether Child actually missed activities in New
    Jersey while he was at Father’s house because Mother spent significant time
    during the weekends outside of New Jersey. See
    id. at 208-09.
    Overall,
    Attorney Shipman opined that Child’s social life was in Williamsport, but that
    it was more important for Child to attend the School. See
    id. at 206.
    Child testified in camera, acknowledging that while he had previously
    been neutral about where he wanted to live, he now wished to live with Father
    during the school year. See N.T., 8/23/19, at 120-21. Child disclosed that he
    initially favored staying at the School because he was concerned about the
    potential to have 28 students in a class at Montoursville Area High School.
    See
    id. at 121-22.
    However, he had visited the school and did not believe that
    the rooms would hold that many students. See
    id. Accordingly, Child
    no longer
    believed there was a difference between the two schools. See
    id. at 122.
    Child
    acknowledged he did not know much about Montoursville Area High School
    - 19 -
    J-S10013-20
    beyond   the   class   size,   but   highlighted   his   interest   in   theater   and
    Montoursville’s strong theater program. See
    id. at 124-25.
    Child further testified that he did well at the School and had friends, but
    did not see them outside of school. See
    id. at 126.
    Child asserted that he had
    more friends and connections to Williamsport and would have more
    opportunities to spend time with friends in Williamsport. See
    id. at 126-27,
    135-36. However, Child stated that he would be able to adjust if he stayed in
    New Jersey. See
    id. at 140-41.
    While Father argues that the court erred in its evaluation of the custody
    best interest factors in awarding Mother primary physical custody during
    Child’s school year, our review of the record confirms that the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in its evaluation of the testimony and weighing of the
    factors. Moreover, although Child testified that he wished to live with Father,
    Child’s position changed throughout the litigation, and the trial court
    appropriately explained its rationale for discounting Child’s preference.
    Accordingly, Father’s first issue does not merit relief.
    In his second issue, Father contends that the trial court’s decision to
    require Father to exercise one weekend of his partial physical custody in
    Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and one weekend in Montclair, New Jersey, is
    improper and vague. See Father’s Brief at 32. Father acknowledges Mother’s
    testimony that Child’s time away from New Jersey for two weekends per
    month impaired Child’s ability to participate in community and peer activities.
    - 20 -
    J-S10013-20
    See
    id. However, Father
    argues that, to the extent he travels to New Jersey,
    he is unlikely to be able to participate in Child’s activities, and that both Father
    and the GAL believed such a provision would be unworkable. See
    id. at 32-
    33. Moreover, Father asserts that the requirement that his custody time occur
    in Williamsport is vague and unworkable. See
    id. at 33-34.
    Father notes that
    he lives in Montoursville rather than Williamsport, and that, accordingly, he
    would be required to locate a hotel in Williamsport to comply with the order.
    See
    id. at 34.
    Additionally, Father contends that, on weekends when Child does not
    have activities, the order does not explicitly allow him to exercise custody in
    Pennsylvania. See
    id. As structured,
    Father contends the order deprives Child
    of the ability to see his friends and extended family. See
    id. at 34-35.
    Further,
    Father contends that the logistics of traveling to New Jersey make exercising
    his custody time difficult and punishes Father for historically being
    accommodating to Mother. See
    id. at 35-36.
    Father argues that it would be
    preferable for the parent with partial physical custody to have custody every
    other weekend at the location of their choice. See
    id. at 36-37.
    Moreover,
    Father observes that he previously had physical custody every other weekend
    rather than twice per month, and that the order does not specify which
    weekends Father has custody. See
    id. at 34-37.
    Initially, we note that in Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement, he did not
    specifically assert that the trial court erred by requiring him to exercise one of
    - 21 -
    J-S10013-20
    his weekends of custody within the City of Williamsport, focusing instead on
    the difficulties of traveling to New Jersey.5 Accordingly, that issue is waived.
    See Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 
    893 A.2d 776
    , 797 (Pa. Super.
    2006) (citations omitted) (stating, “any issue not raised in a statement of
    matters complained of on appeal is deemed waived.”). Moreover, even if
    Father had not waived this specific issue, it is apparent that the trial court’s
    reference to “Williamsport” refers to the general area where Father lives. See
    Order, 9/6/19, at 2 (“Father shall have partial physical custody of [Child] one
    (1) weekend per month in Williamsport, PA, and one (1) weekend per month
    in the Montclair, N.J. area in order for [Child] to be able to participate in
    activities with his peers.”). While the language of the order could be more
    precise, we do not find merit to Father’s argument that the custody order
    requires Father to exercise his custodial time solely within the geographic
    bounds of the City of Williamsport. Accordingly, we reject Father’s assertion
    that the trial court’s order improperly limits the location of Father’s custodial
    time to the City of Williamsport.
    ____________________________________________
    5 Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement included the following: “[i]n ordering in
    unclear and ambiguous terms that Appellant is to exercise one weekend per
    month in Williamsport, PA and one weekend per month in Montclair, NJ when
    clearly restricting the child’s custodial time with Appellant is not in M.W.’s best
    interests and does not take into account the impracticality, expense and
    Appellant’s ability to travel out of state each month. Moreover, the provision
    does not accomplish the goal for which it was intended and as such was an
    abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Rule 1925(b) Statement at ¶ 1c.
    - 22 -
    J-S10013-20
    With respect to the order’s requirement that Father exercise custody
    two weekends per month, with one weekend per month in the Montclair, New
    Jersey, area, we again discern no abuse of discretion. While Father’s argument
    relies on testimony that was favorable to him, additional testimony, primarily
    from Mother, supported the benefits to Child for Father to travel to New Jersey
    to exercise his periods of physical custody one weekend per month. Further,
    there was testimony supporting the need to work around Child’s activities. It
    is apparent that the trial court credited this testimony and concluded that
    Father should have two custodial weekends per month, with one of the
    custodial weekends in New Jersey to allow Child to participate in activities.
    See Order, 9/6/19, at 2. We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
    order. Accordingly, Father’s second issue fails.
    In his final two issues, Father argues that the trial court erred by
    permitting Child to attend any and all camps over the summer if one parent
    agrees, and by permitting Mother to unilaterally select a counselor for Child.
    See Father’s Brief at 37-39. Father argues that both provisions contradict the
    shared legal custody otherwise required by the custody order. See
    id. Moreover, Father
    contends that allowing one parent to unilaterally select camp
    will make vacation planning difficult and would, in a worst-case scenario, allow
    Mother to deprive Father of significant custody time over the summer by
    scheduling numerous camps. See
    id. at 37-38.
    - 23 -
    J-S10013-20
    Although the trial court did not offer a specific rationale for allowing
    either parent to choose a camp, or for Mother to choose Child’s counselor, the
    court acknowledged the strained relationship between Father and Mother.
    Further, the court stated that it “maybe, will back off from a more formal
    tradition of legal custody in that talking about how the parents view this which
    is not, as Miss Protasio pointed out, what we lawyers and judges see as legal
    custody, shared legal custody, but I’m afraid if I try to tinker with this it’s
    going to create another area of discord in interactions between the parties so
    I’ll be thinking about that.” See N.T., 8/23/19, at 192-93.
    Our review of the record confirms that there was ample testimony
    presented to establish that the parties were unable to communicate regarding
    Child’s camp and counselor in a manner that advanced Child’s best interests.
    Although the trial court awarded Father and Mother shared legal custody, it
    carved out these two areas that were historically problematic.
    With regard to camp, Father’s concerns that Mother can deny him
    substantial custody time over the summer are entirely speculative and are
    inconsistent with Mother’s testimony at trial. To the extent that Mother
    pursues such a strategy, Father would be entitled to seek relief with the trial
    court. However, we do not discern any abuse of discretion or error of law with
    respect to the manner in which the trial court addressed camp and counseling
    for Child. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
    Order affirmed.
    - 24 -
    J-S10013-20
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 05/11/2020
    - 25 -