R.R.B. v. S.A.M.

J -A11003-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
R.R.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
S.A.M.
Appellant : No. 1929 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Civil Division at No(s):
2016-20539
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2019
S.A.M. ("Mother") appeals from the order entered on October 26, 2018,
awarding her sole legal custody and primary physical custody of her son, C.B.
Mother challenges aspects of the custody order relating to how R.R.B.
("Father") can exercise the narrow periods of physical custody that the court
awarded to him. We affirm.
C.B. was born during October 2010. The parties never married, and the
relationship dissolved prior to the birth of C.B. For the first eight years of the
child's life, Mother maintained primary physical custody of C.B., most recently
in Palmyra, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and Father exercised rare periods
of overnight custody at his home in Ashland, Pennsylvania, approximately
sixty miles away from Palmyra. Father asserted that his lack of contact with
C.B. was due, in part, to Mother's interference.
J -A11003-19
On January 4, 2018, Father filed a custody complaint seeking shared
physical and legal custody. Following a conciliation conference, Mother's filing
of exceptions to the conference officer's recommended interim order, and the
trial court's unsuccessful attempts to broker a consent agreement, the court
conducted a two day custody trial. At the close of the evidence, the trial court
issued its decision from the bench and delineated its rationale on the record
in open court pursuant to Pa.C.S. § 5323(d). Stated plainly, the court
concluded that Mother overscheduled C.B.'s activities in an attempt to
minimize Father's contact with his son, and announced that it was not going
to require Father to forgo control over his custodial periods in order to travel
with C.B. from Ashland to Palmyra for activities that interfered with his
custody. Accordingly, the trial court awarded Mother legal custody and
primary physical custody of C.B during approximately eighty-six percent of
the time, and Father was granted limited periods of physical custody on
alternating weekends and two nonconsecutive weeks during summer
vacation. In addition, as it relates to the arguments raised in this appeal, the
custody order memorialized the court's perspective that Father retains
discretion to choose which of C.B.'s activities to attend during his custodial
periods.
The following paragraph embodies the trial court's view of Father's
discretion.
All Custody Orders are modifiable and reviewable. The one
we entered on October 26, 2018 should be given a chance to work.
If FATHER wields his limited alternating weekend custody control
-2-
J -A11003-19
to hurt C.B. simply because he can, such conduct will not be
viewed positively by this Court. If MOTHER reaches out to attempt
collaboration and FATHER obstinately rebuffs her outreach, we will
not be pleased. If these things occur, we will not foreclose the
possibility of modifying the Order we have entered today.
However, we will not PRESUME today that minimal cooperation
between the parties is an impossible goal.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/18, at 17-18.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i) by contemporaneously filing a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal raising six issues, which she reiterates for our review
as follows:
a. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion in ordering Mother to be entitled to select only two
weeks for summer camps as the limitation upon opportunities for
child care arrangements during the school recess is not in the best
interests of the child?
b. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion in ordering that [Father] not be required to inform
Mother of his vacation preference until the 15 of May as the
limitation upon opportunities for child care arrangements during
the school recess is not in the best interests of the child?
c. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion in its grant of alternate weekends as the minimum in
an award of partial physical custody rather than any lesser amount
as dictated by the evidence presented?
d. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion by subordinating the child's best interests to the rights
of the Father as it permits Father to remove from, rather than join
with, the child in established patterns and activities that have
fostered the child's physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual and
emotional well being?
-3
J -A11003-19
e. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion in failing to recognize Father's repeated acquiescence
of custody as an example of unfitness?
f. Whether the trial court committed error and abused its
discretion by not basing its conclusion of Mother limiting Father's
relationship with the minor child on competent evidence, yet
relying on said conclusion in the formation of the custody order?
Mother's brief at 12-13 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We review Mother's issues according to the following scope and standard
of review:
This Court reviews a custody determination for an abuse of
discretion. In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). We
will not find an abuse of discretion "merely because a reviewing
court would have reached a different conclusion." Id. (citation
omitted). Rather, "[a]ppellate courts will find a trial court abuses
its discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it overrides or misapplies
the law, or the record shows that the trial court's judgment was
either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality,
prejudice, bias or ill will." Id.
R.L. v. M.A., 2019 Pa. Super. 145, 2019 WL 1967809 (filed May 3, 2019).
Moreover,
on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the
findings of the trial [court] wh[ich] has had the opportunity to
observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.
The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court
places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial
court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is
unwarranted if the trial court's consideration of the best interest
of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find
any abuse of discretion.
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
-4
J -A11003-19
After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties' briefs and
the pertinent law, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
court as to the issues raised by Mother, and we affirm the custody order on
the basis of the cogent and well -reasoned opinion that Honorable Bradford H.
Charles entered on December 6, 2018.1
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 07/18/2019
1 Mother asserts that the trial court order precludes her from registering C.B.
in summer camp, which she uses as childcare during the summer. Her
complaint is misguided. We observe that Mother can continue to rely upon
summer camp for childcare, she simply cannot dictate Father's vacation
schedule beyond the two-week period she is entitled to reserve for summer
camp in her initial notification to Father regarding C.B.'s summer activities.
Thus, to the extent that the trial court neglected to clarify this point in its
opinion, no relief is due.
-5
Circulated 06/21/2019 03:49 PM •
'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVL ACTION - LAW
R� . . . R. Bj. NO. 2016-20539
Plaintiff
v.
s. A. M! I
Oefe ndant/Appella nt
APPEARANCES:
Max Smith, Esquire, For R,: 0. B,;
Kim Lengert, Esquire For st'.
OPIN·ION BY CHARLES, J., Dece:mber 6,. 2018
On October 24, 2018, this Court conducted a Custody Trial in the
above-referenced matter. Following the trial, we awarded sole legal
custody and primary physical custody of the parties' son C.B. to s. . A.
M. .. · (hereafter MOTHER). We afforded R� · , R, B .. c • • '
••
• ., {hereafter
FATHER) with only 14% of the available physical custody time. By any
definition, MOTHER was the successful litigant in the Custody Trial.
Nevertheless, she has filed an Appeal because we did not give her
everything that she wanted. To say that we are disappointed with
MOTHER's Appeal would be an understatement. We issue this Opinion in
support of our decision.
I. FACTS
MOTHER and FATHER are the parents of 8 year old C.B.1 At all
times pertinent hereto, MOTH ER has resided in Palmyra of Lebanon
County. FATHER has resided in Ashland, Schuylkill County. The two
parents are separated by a drive time of between 60 and 75 minutes
MOTHER and FATHER separated approximately three months
before C.B. was born. For several years thereafter, FATHER did not play
an important role in C.B.'s life. In fact, before filing the Custody Action
now before this Court, FATHER had enjoyed only one or two periods of
overnight custody with his son. FATHER explained: "She would not let me
have him."
On January 4, 2018, FATHER filed a Complaint for Custody. The
parties met with a Custody Conciliator, who recommended that the parties
share legal custody and that FATHER should enjoy physical custody on
alternating weekends. MOTHER filed exceptions to this recommendation.
Th Is Court conducted an initial Pre- Trial Conference on June 15, 2018. At
that time, we documented that MOTHER and FATHER had agreed to a
custody schedule that afforded FATHER with alternating weekends of
physical custody. We also documented that a dispute existed with respect
to whether FATHER should be required to drive C.B. back to Lebanon
County for all of his activities. We stated In our Pre-Trial Order;
MOTHER and FATHER reside in different counties.
0
MOTHER is a resident of Palmyra, Lebanon County.
FATHER resides in Ashville, Schuylkill County. The
I
For the sake ofC.B's privacy, we will refer to him only by his initials.
2
drive distance between the parents is approximately 1
hour. This creates problems with respect to the child's
sports actlvltles. This Court would expect FATHER to
transport his son to any scheduled games that may be
scheduled in Lebanon County. However, FATHER
should not be required to transport his son to all
practices that may occur during his weekend. Of course,
both parents should consult with their son's coaches
when making a decision about practices and games." (11
E of Court Order dated June 15, 2018.)
We ultimately declined to schedule an immediate Custody Trial; we stated
"This Court perceives that MOTHER and FATHER are close to having an
agreement."
Our hopes that an agreement would be entered were quashed
relatively quickly. On July 2, 2018, MOTHER filed a Motion seeking to
proceed with a Custody Trial. We scheduled another Pre-Trial
Conference for July 20, 2018. After the second Pre-Trial Conference, a
Custody Trial was scheduled for October 24, 2018.
At the Custody Trial, we heard testimony about both parties and
C. B. Both parties complained that the other wanted undue control over
matters relating to custody. FATHER sought a shared custody
arrangement. MOTHER wanted to remain in control of all matters
pertaining to C.B.
A primary point of contention was C.B.'s extracurricular activities.
We learned that C.B. was active in church, sports and scouting. MOTHER
wanted C.B. to attend all of his activities, even during weekends when
C.B. would be with his father. FATHER took the position that he should
3
not be required to drive to Lebanon on each of his weekends for C.B.'s
various activities.
Following trial, this jurist rendered a decision in Open Court. We
articulated our analysis of the factors set forth in Pennsylvania's Custody
Act. This jurist also articulated the following regarding C. B's activities:
• "Ma'am, it seems to me that you have worked very hard to limit
Dad's contact with (C.B.J. You have all but said that Boy Scouts,
hikes, camp, soccer, time with grandparents, all of those things are
more important than C.B. spending time with his father, and you are
dead wrong on that. Dead wrong." (Custody Decision N.T. 3)
• "There is no evidence that either of you have affirmatively acted to
turn {C.B.J against the other parent, but there i,s evident information
that both of you would do that if you had the chance. And I think
subtly Mom has done that by prioritizing all of these other things
over Dad's limited contact with the child. And I'm going to repeat
what I said before, Ma'am. Right now under the existing Court
Order you have 86% of time and he has 14% of time. That speaks
for itself. That is about as limited a contact as a father should ever
have, and you want to limit it even further." (Custody Decision N.T.
6)
• "Education is Important, but under today's day and age positive
developmental activities are, I won't say just as important, but, boy,
it comes really, really close. Idle hands truly are the Devil's
4
workshop. When I was presiding in Juvenile Court for kids that
committed crimes, almost inevitably those kids when I asked them
well, do you play sports, are you in the band, do you have any
activities that you enjoy, almost none of them did. Almost none of
them did and so they had idle time and they gravitated toward things
they shouldn't do. The kids who succeed in this world are kids who
are active, are kids who play sports, who are in the band or are in
drama, who have a purpose in their lives and they have goals.
Positive activities teach teamwork. They teach social skills. They
teach the ethic that practice and work leads to improvement. They
teach delayed gratification. Positive activities afford kids with
purpose. Ifs something they look forward to. It introduces kids to
other children who have a purpose, other children who are self-
disciplined, other children who will help them in a positive direction.
Positive activities surround children with adults who are volunteers
and coaches who can turn out to be mentors. I cannot
underestimate the value of positive activities for a child. They are
important. 11 (Custody Decision N. T. 7)
• "I think right now you [the parents] need help getting along .... ln part
because of your (MOTHER's] unwillingness to give him credit for
what he has attempted to do and your unwillingness to consider the
fact that he can be a positive influence on your son, more positive
5
than soccer or Boy Scouts or something along those lines." (Custody
Decision N.T. 8)
• "I need to talk about activities. This is a common issue. I have
already acknowledged their importance. I believe in positive
activities for children. I believe in keeping children active. I believe
in giving them goals and giving them a purpose. I already said all of
that. But I need to be clear, Dad's time is Dad's time and if he
doesn't want to travel to Palmyra for an activity, that's his choice,
not yours. [MOTHER's]. If there is a conflict between one of (C.B's]
activities and Dad's time, Dad makes the decision of whether (C. BJ
comes to the activity or [C.B] stays in Ashland. It's his choice.
Now with that being said, I hope that you [FATHER] make the
choice to consider keeping [C.BJ involved in his activities even on
your weekend. Maybe not, you know, two or three different times
each and every weekend, but if he has an important activity, not a
practice, he can miss practices we all know that, but if he has an
important soccer game or he has the Pinewood Derby, which is an
important activity for Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts, if it's an important
activity - - and you're going to know which ones those are - - I hope
you make the choice to drive down with him and be with him for that
activity.
I was a Little League baseball coach for many years and 1.
faced this issue. We had many kids on our team whose parents had
6
split. One weekend they're with Dad, one weekend they're with
Mom, and the one parent usually would have the kid at the game or
practices each and every weekend they had custody, the other
weekend it was not so consistent, and that was normal. That was
something that we as coaches had to learn to deal with. But here
was the problem: We would have a playoff game on Saturday and
Johnny wouldn't show up because Johnny was with his dad and his
dad just didn't support baseball and Dad lived, you know, a mile or
two miles away or whatever, but Johnny wouldn't show up for the
playoff game because Johnny was with his dad. The other kids
resented Johnny because he was an important part of the team.
They needed him, they wanted him there, and when he didn't show
up they couldn't take it out on some Judge, they couldn't take it on
his dad, they took it out on him. And then in turn Johnny realized
that he had let his friends down, he had let his team down, and he
started resenting his dad for not letting him participate in that
playoff game. I saw that dynamic multiple times in the years I was a
coach and it never ended we II.
I also saw situation where parents would sit down with me as
the coach and say, look, we are going to Cape May that particular
weekend for a weekend away with family and Johnny is not going to
be at the baseball game that weekend. We have explained it to
Johnny that we're going to Cape May and we wanted to talk to you
7
so that you could understand. Then I would also talk to Johnny and
I would talk to the rest of the team and I would say, Johnny is not
going to be here next week because he has a trip planned with his
family that's important and he needs to be with his family, so we're
going to have to play all that much harder to make up for Johnny's
absence, and it worked seamlessly and there was no resentment.
I am putting you [FATHER] in control of what you do on your
weekends, but I implore you to consider [C.B's] activities and how
important they are to him. I do not expect that you would bring
(C. B.J down to Palmyra as much as she (MOTHER] would like you to
bring him down to Palmyra. I don't expect that. If you have a
soccer game in the afternoon and a Boy Scout activity at night I
don't expect him to be at both. And I expect that there will be
weekends when you want to go camping or hiking or shooting or
whatever and that you're simply going to prioritize you own activities
over his commitments in Palmyra. I expect that as well. All I am
saying is that I ask you to talk with your son, communicate with his
coaches, with his leaders, his adult leaders, and to come to the
conclusion that this is something he can miss and this is something
that he really shouldn't miss, and for those activities that he really
shouldn't miss I implore you to take the time to drive down with him
so that you can participate in those activities with him. It will go so
much better.
8
The other thing I'm going to say about activities is that they
can be some of the most meaningful child-parent time. I look back
on my own children's lives and the things I remember are the Little
League baseball games, the softball games, the swim meets, the
concerts, the plays, and watching the joy in their face when they
achieved something that they really weren't sure they were going to
be able to achieve and having them run up to you and hug you when
they're done because they are so happy with what they
accomplished, what their hard work has accomplished. Those are
some of the best memories I have as a parent and I want that for
both of you. I want that for you. sir. I want you to be a part of that.
Don't deprive yourself of those moments.
All that being said, ma'am, l'rn going to reiterate one
more time. less there be no confusion, his time is his time and [fC\the.-f' J
makes the decision, not you." (Custody Decision N.T 12-16)
Much to our surprise, we received an Appeal of our decision from
MOTHER on November 20, 2018. In her Appeal, MOTHER complained
that we afforded FATHER with alternating weekends "rather than any
lesser amount as dictated by the evidence presented." She also
complained that we provided FATHER with the discretion to choose
whether or not to drive C.B. to Palmyra for all of his weekend activities.
She also complained about the portion of our Court Order that afforded
9
FATHER with two non-consecutive weeks of physical custody for purposes
of vacation. We author this Opinion in support of the Custody Decision
we reached on October 26, 2018.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Alternating Weekend Schedule
We begin our analysis by recognizing that MOTHER has been the
primary parental influence upon C.8. for his entire life. We have no
qualms about the historic care provided by MOTHER for C.B, nor do we
quarrel with the vast majority of decisions that MOTHER has rendered
with respect to her son. In almost every way, S�. A. M. has been a
quintessential "good mom".
The primary problem we have with MOTHER is that she is seeking to
prevent FATHER from becoming a "qo od dad". Without question, FATHER
did not play a signiflcant role in his son's life for most of his pre-school
years. However, he has expressed a clear desire to become an active
father, and he has backed up his stated desire with his actions. Over the
past several years, FATHER has seen his son frequently. For much of
this time, he has enjoyed alternating weekend physical custody. By all
accounts, FATHER has developed a good relationship with C.B. We have
heard nothing about abuse, neglect or emotional trauma arising from
FATHER's time with C.B.
10
The Custody Order we entered afforded FATHER with custody
approximately 14% of C.B.'s available time. That left MOTHER in control
of C.8. approximately 86% of the time. By any definition, we afforded
MOTHER with an overwhelming award of primary physical custody. Yet
she complains that we did not limit FATHER even further.
This Court views alternating weekends as a minimal period of
physical custody. We also remember that as recently as June, MOTHER
had agreed to an alternating weekend physical custody paradigm. (See,
Pre-Trial Conference Order of June 15, 2018). Quite frankly, we have a
difficult time understanding why MOTHER now takes the position that
FATHER's time with his son should be reduced below what we had
ordered.
We fully understand that MOTHER has military commitments that
require her to be absent from home one weekend per month. We
addressed this dynamic by stating:
"Here is what should happen regarding physical custody:
You folks should sit down with a calendar, you should
look at Mom's drill schedule, you should look at [C.B'sJ
activity schedule, you should look at plans that Dad has
for activities that he wants to do with [C.B.] and then the
two of you should figure out, ok, these two weekends
this month are Dad's, these two weekends this month are
Mom's. They. may not perfectly mesh, but it's better than
doing It any other way. It's more convenient. It's less
lmpactful In terms of [C.B.'s] activities. That's what you
should do. Each and every month figure out in advance
with all of your schedules which two weekends a month
are Dad's and which two weekends a month are Mom's.
That's what should happen, and I have built room into
the Court Order if you want to do that. But if you don't
then we're going to go with the alternating weekend
11
physical custody schedule, ma'am, which I consider to
be an absolute minimum." (Custody Decision N.T. 11)
Unfortunately, it appears as though MOTHER is not even wiling to attempt
collaboration with FATHER regarding the weekend schedule. Her Appeal
papers suggest that she simply wants FATHER's time reduced.
It is the opinion of this Court that FATHER should have two
weekends per month with his son. It would be best for all concerned if
MOTHER and FATHER could sit down on a month-to-month basis and
arrange the best weekends for this to occur. If they cannot, then the
easiest and most stable schedule to enforce is an alternate weekend
schedule. Like millions of other parents who live within this paradigm,
these parties will have to learn how to arrange their own schedules to
accommodate and facilitate the physical custody time awarded to the
other parent. We will not relieve MOTHER of having to undertake this
sometimes hard and uncomfortable work.
We stand by our decision to award FATHER with alternating
weekend physical custody. MOTHER has presented no reason why this
minimal period of physical custody awarded to FATHER should not be
continued.
B. Summer Vacation
Our Court Order awarded FATHER two non-consecutive weeks
during the summer for a vacation with C.B. At the Custody Trial,
MOTHER expressed concern about C.B's summer camp commitments.
Because of this, we built in the following language in our Court Order:
12
"On or before May 1 of each year. MOTHER is to notify
FATHER of summer camp commitments for (C.8.J.
MOTHER shall be entitled to select two weeks for
summer camps. FATHER shall not be entitled to select
one of the camp weeks for his vacation. On or before
May 15 of each year. FATHER shall notify MOTHER of
the weeks during which he wishes to exercise vacation
physical custody during the summer."
MOTHER objects to the award of week-long vacation periods of
physical custody. She claims that she should be entitled to select more
than two weeks for C. B's summer camps. She also argues that the May
15 date we selected was an abuse of discretion "as the limitation upon
opportunities for child care arrangements during the school recess is not
in the best interest of the child."2
Vacation time is an important way for a parent to build memories
with a child. As people grow into adulthood, they look back upon their
childhood years and remember trips that they took with their parents; it is
much more rare for adults to remember routine dally events they engaged
in at home as children. It is the belief of this Court that both parents
should be afforded the opportunity to enjoy vacation time with C.8. As
primary custodian. MOTHER will have a multitude of dates to select from
in terms of scheduling a vacation. We want to also afford FATHER with a
meaningful opportunity to enjoy uninterrupted quality vacation time with
C.B. Quite frankly, we do not understand MOTHER s objection to this 1
portion of our Court Order, and we believe it should be affirmed as is.
2
We are not exactly clear as to what MOTHER is trying to convey by this language.
13
C. Activities
The issue of activities for C.B. is far and away the most contentious
in this case. MOTHER seems to want to prioritize C.B.'s activities
schedule over all else ... including FATHER's time with his son. MOTHER
has involved C.B. in a multitude of positive activities. We do not quarrel
with any of these activities, as each will benefit C.B. However, MOTHER
has programmed C.B. to the point where it will be impossible to find
weekends where FATHER's custody time will not conflict with one of
C.B.'s activity commitments. This is a problem.
If FATHER and MOTHER lived in close geographic proximity, this
issue would not have been nearly as contentious. Unfortunately, at least
one hour of driving time separates .each parent. Thus, ensuring that C.B.
)
would attend all of his activities during FATHER's weekends would require
two hours of drive time in addition to the time encompassed by the activity
itself. When C.B. has more than one activity scheduled in a given
weekend - and we understand this occurs frequently - an Order requiring
that FATH ER transport C. B. to all of his activities would require C. B. to be
inside a vehicle for a considerable percentage of FATHER's weekend
time. This is neither practical nor in C.B's best interest.
FATHER should be permitted to develop his own activity bond with
C.B. He should not be required to spend hours of his weekend physical
custody time in a motor vehicle. As a governing paradigm, a non-
custodial parent's physical custody time belongs to that non-custodial
14
parent ... and not to the custodial parent by virtue of activities that he/she
schedules for the child.
With the above having been said, this Court has always recognized
the importance of positive extracurricular activities for children. Because
we clearly perceived that FATHER does not share this view, we spent an
extraordinary amount of time in our Custody Decision to encourage
FATHER's involvement in C.B's activities. Using the language quoted on
pages 12-16 herein, we implored FATHER to communicate with leaders
who are supervising C.B's activities. We encouraged FATHER to
prioritize his own presence whenever C.B. has a particularly important
game or activity. However, we could not place MOTHER in control of
determining whether or when FATHER should be required to drive C.8.
from Schuylkill County to Lebanon County; to do this would be to
effectively place MOTHER in control of FATHER's physical custody time
with his son.
As it relates to extracurricular activities, this Court recognizes that
there are no easy solutions. Compromise and communication are
esse ntia I. We stated in our Court Order:
"[C.B.J is involved in numerous scnool-related and
extracurricular activities. Both parents shall be entitled
to attend and/or participate in such activities regardless
of whether the activities occur during a time when the
other parent has primary physical custody. Both parents
are encouraged to prioritize (C. B. 's] involvement in
positive activities. However, the existence of an activity
will not supersede FATHER's ability to enjoy physical
custody on alternating weekends. Thus, if FATHER has
plans for a particular weekend that would conflict with
15
one of [C.B.'sJ activities, Is shall not be necessary for
FATHER to cancel his plans. This paragraph will require
both MOTHER and FATHER to communicate with
coaches, educators, group leaders, etc. If either parent
has plans that conflict with a scheduled activity for
[C.B.J, it shall be the responsibility of that parent to
communicate with adult leaders in charge of
h osting/facllitating the activity. Under no circumstances
should FATHER be expected to travel to Palmyra for one
of [C.B.'s] activities more than once during each period
of his physical custody."
We chose this language carefully. It was not our intent to tie either
parent's hands as it related to activities; we instead wanted to promote
flexibility and communication. We even placed the onus on FATHER to
communicate with coaches and adult leaders whenever he chose to
prioritize his own activities in Sch uylki II County over [C. 8 's] activities In
Palmyra.
We are puzzled by MOTHER's complaints about our language and
our Court Order. MOTHER should realize that there is no practical way to
speciflca lly craft a Court Order that addresses all extracurricular activities
that occur during the non-custodial parent's physical custody time. We
have made it clear to both MOTHER and FATHER that this jurist
prioritizes extracurricular actlvities.3 We believe that FATHER should be
given the chance to spend meaningful time with his son, and we hope and
expect that he will come to recognize that some of the most "meaningful"
moments of a child's life will occur when he is enjoying positive purpose-
lf f in the future we learn th at FA THE R steadfastly refuses to perm it C. B.
to attend an� activity during his physical custody time, we will be more
inclined to issue dlreotlves designed to promote C. B. 's cont I nued
involvement in his activities.
16
driven activities. It Is the belief of this Court that the existing Custody
Order should be given a chance to work and that changing it via an
Appeal would not be in C.B's interest.
Ill. CONCLUSION
We were surprised when we received MOTHER's Appeal papers.
We were puzzled when we read her Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal. As we digested what MOTHER presented, we came to realize
that she is uncomfortable ceding any control over her son to FATHER.
Her Appeal issues are designed to create a custody paradigm where
MOTHER, and MOTHER alone, exercises complete control over all
aspects of C.B's life. Our fear is that if MOTHER gets what she wants,
the ultimate result will be complete estrangement between FATHER and
his son. If nothing else, we can definitively state that estrangement from
his father would not be in C.B's best interest.
MOTHER and FATHER do not get along. That much is obvious.
The Court Order we entered encouraged the type of communication and
collaboration that will not be easy for either party. So be it. Both
MOTHER and FATHER have to draw upon their love of C.B. and elevate
that over their mistrust and dislike for one another.
All Custody Orders are modifiable and reviewable. The one we
entered on October 26, 2018 should be given a chance to work. If
FATHER wields his limited alternating weekend custody control to hurt
17
C.8. simply because he can, such conduct will not be viewed positively by
this Court. If MOTHER reaches out to attempt collaboration and FATHER
obstinately rebuffs her outreach, we will not be pleased. If these things
occur, we will not foreclose the possibility of modifying the Order we have
entered today. However, we will not PRESUME today that minimal
cooperation between the parties is an impossible goal.
Both parties should have to undertake the difficult work of working
together and compromising so that each enjoys a healthy relationship with
C.B. As C.B. grows older, he will need both a mother and a father. The
Court Order we entered on October 26, 2018 was designed to facilitate
this goal. The relief MOTHER seeks would make life easier for her
because it would effectively place her in complete control. However, it
would not facilitate the long-term goal of enabling C.8. to bond with and
have an appropriate relationship with his father. It is for this reason that
we ask the Pennsylvania Superior Court to affirm the Order that we
entered.
18