Bailey, W. v. R.N. v. Knepper, G. ( 2023 )

J-A11025-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
WAYNE AND DENISE BAILEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
R.N. AND C.I. :
:
: No. 1356 WDA 2022
v. :
:
:
GINA KNEPPER AND BRENDA :
KNEPPER :
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Dated October 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 364-2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: June 2, 2023
L.W.N., born in March of 2017, and D.M.N., born in May of 2019,
(collectively Children) are the subjects of this custody case. Brenda Knepper
(Brenda), the maternal great-grandmother, and Gina Knepper (Gina), the
maternal grandmother, (collectively Appellants) were the Intervenors below.
Wayne and Denise Bailey (the Baileys), the paternal grandmother and step-
grandfather, were the Plaintiffs below. C.I. (Mother) is the natural mother of
the Children and R.N. (Father) is the natural father of the Children. Following
our review, we affirm.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11025-23
Following a number of hearings, the trial court issued a Memorandum
Opinion (TCMO), dated October 21, 2022, in which it set forth the factual
background of this case and listed the petitions filed by the various parties.
The trial court also included a discussion directed at all sixteen custody factors
identified in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) and the relocation factors contained in 23
Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). The trial court further included an Order (TCO), dated
October 21, 2022, detailing a custody schedule.
After the TCMO and the TCO were issued by the trial court, Appellants
appealed to this Court and raised the following three issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of law
when it awarded primary physical custody to paternal
grandparents despite the dangers posed by a household member,
namely, Father, especially when 23 Pa.C.S.[] [§] 5328(a) requires
the [c]ourt to give weighted consideration to the factors which
affect the safety of the [C]hild[ren]?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its determination that
Appellants should not share legal custody of the minor [C]hildren?
3. Did [the trial court] abuse its discretion by awarding paternal
grandparents primary physical custody when the custody factors
weighed heavily in favor of Appellants?
Appellants’ brief at 4.
The trial court then issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Opinion (1925 Opinion),
dated December 20, 2022, that provided a summary of the case, a list of the
issues raised by Appellants, a reference to the TCMO with regard to the first
and third issues raised and a discussion supplementing its brief statement
discussing the second issue in the TCMO. See 1925 Opinion, 12/20/22.
-2-
J-A11025-23
The relevant scope and standard of review in custody matters are 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 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.
V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that:
The 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)).
A.H. v. C.M., 58 A.3d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, “[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).
Appellants’ arguments are essentially requesting that this Court re-find
facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, our standard of review
-3-
J-A11025-23
does not permit us to function in this manner. Rather, our standard of review
requires that we “accept findings of the trial court that are supported by
competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making
independent factual determinations.” V.B., 55 A.3d at 97. Moreover, 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.”
Id. We do not conclude that that is the situation here. The trial court’s
findings are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its
conclusions are not unreasonable.
We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable
law, and the thorough, well-reasoned TCMO, dated October 21, 2022, and the
1925 Opinion, dated December 20, 2022, both that were authored by the
Honorable Brandi J. Hershey of the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County.
We conclude that Judge Hershey’s opinions properly dispose of the issues
presented by Appellants in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt both of the trial
court’s opinions as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis.
Order affirmed.
-4-
J-A11025-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/2/2023
-5-