J.C. v. B.W.

J-A29015-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.C. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
B.W. : No. 460 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered March 24, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Civil Division at No(s):
CP-42-CD-491-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED; January 26, 2023
J.C. (Mother) appeals from the March 24, 2022 order that awarded
Mother and B.W. (Father) joint legal custody with Mother having physical
custody on weekdays and Father having physical custody three weekends per
month of their son, B.C-W. (Child), born in August of 2008. After review, we
affirm.
In its Opinion and Order issued on March 24, 2022, the trial court
provided the background of this matter, stating:
The parties are the natural parents of B.C-W., age thirteen
(13). This matter commenced with [Mother’s] Amended Petition
for Emergency Relief, filed August 11, 2021, which was treated as
a Petition to Modify Custody by Order dated October 21, 2021. On
August 16, 2021, [Mother] filed a Petition for Appointment of [a]
Guardian ad litem (GAL), which the [c]ourt denied.1 On October
26, 2021, with the agreement of both parties, the [c]ourt
[o]rdered a custody evaluation and appointed Dr. Robert Maiden
as Custody Evaluator.
J-A29015-22
1 On October 1, 2021, [Mother] filed a Motion for
Reconsideration requesting the [c]ourt reconsider[]
appointing a GAL, which the [c]ourt denied following a
hearing on October 12, 2021.
On November 30, 2021, [Father] filed a Petition for Civil
Disobedience of Custody Order, alleging that [Mother] was
withholding custody and that he had not seen B.C-W. since July
2021, in violation of the parties’ existing Custody Order filed
November 23, 2010, and in violation of the [c]ourt’s October 21,
2021 Order. A hearing was held on the Petition on January 7,
2022. It was undisputed that [Father] had not exercised a period
of physical custody since July 2021, despite numerous [c]ourt
[o]rders directing the parties to comply with their Custody Order.
[Mother] argued that B.C-W. refused to go to [Father’s] periods
of custody and that she could not force him. The [c]ourt deferred
decision on the Petition for Civil Disobedience and issued an
Interim Order to ensure [Father] received at least some periods
of custody until the parties’ custody trial.
The parties are currently following an Interim Custody Order
dated January 10, 2022. Under its terms, the parties share legal
custody and [Father] has periods of custody two (2) times per
week for a period of three (3) hours. Also on January 10, 2022,
the [c]ourt issued an [o]rder appointing legal counsel for B.C-W.,
denying [Mother’s] Second Motion to Appoint a Guardian ad litem,
and scheduling an expanded custody trial, among other things.
Argument on all other outstanding motions was held on
February 10, 2022, including argument on [Mother’s] Motion to
Disqualify [Father’s] counsel, which the [c]ourt denied. An
expanded custody trial was ultimately held on March 3, 2022, and
March 4, 2022.
Trial Court Opinion and Order (TCOO), 3/24/2022, at 1-2. In the TCOO, the
court set forth findings of fact, a complete list of exhibits, and a list of all the
witnesses that testified at the March 2022 custody trial. The TCOO also
contained a discussion directed at all sixteen custody factors, identified in 23
Pa.C.S. § 5328(a), and a detailed custody schedule.
-2-
J-A29015-22
Mother then filed this appeal.1 She also filed a seven-page Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal that contained
twelve issues with the second issue listing twelve sub-issues. Despite this
extensive Concise Statement, Mother’s brief only states the following two
issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
modify the parties’ current custody order based upon
substantial and credible evidence that contact between
[Father] and [C]hild was not in the best interests of the
[C]hild?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the
[Father’s] Petition for Civil Disobedience of a Custody Order
when there was no evidence upon which the [c]ourt could
find that the [Mother] possessed the requisite intent to be
held in contempt?
Mother’s brief at 32.
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
____________________________________________
1 We note that the order from which Mother appeals directs that a status
conference would be held in June of 2022. Despite the scheduling of the status
conference, we conclude that the March 24, 2022 order constitutes a final and
appealable child custody order because no custody claims are outstanding.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that “disposes of all claims
and of all parties”); see also G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996)
(a custody order is final and appealable after the trial court has concluded its
hearings on the matter and the resultant order resolves the pending custody
claims between the parties). It is apparent that the trial court scheduled the
status conference to review compliance with the March 24, 2022 order rather
than because there were any claims outstanding.
-3-
J-A29015-22
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).
As noted above, the trial court issued the TCOO on March 24, 2022,
following the custody trial. Then, after Mother filed her appeal and her Concise
Statement, the trial court filed an opinion to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),
providing the facts, referencing the standard of review, and directing answers
-4-
J-A29015-22
and analyzing all of Mother’s issues set forth in her concise statement. See
Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 5/9/2022.
Essentially, Mother’s arguments are requesting that this Court re-find
facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, our standard of review
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.” C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443
(Pa. Super. 2012). 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.” E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa.
Super. 2011). 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 opinion authored by the Honorable
Christopher G. Hauser of the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County, dated
May 9, 2022. We conclude that Judge Hauser’s opinion properly disposes of
the issues presented by Mother in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial
court’s opinion as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-A29015-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/26/2023
-6-
Circulated 01/04/2023 08:21 AM