A.S.W. v. H.M.W.

J-S47016-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
A.S.W. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
H.M.W. : No. 2267 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered November 25, 2015 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil
Division at No(s): CI-15-05403
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
A.S.W. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on November 23,
2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, awarding H.M.W.
(“Mother”) primary physical custody of E.M.W. (“Child”) (born in March of
2012), awarding Father partial physical custody, and awarding Mother and
Father shared legal custody of Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). We
affirm.
The trial court set forth the extensive factual history of this case in its
opinion accompanying the subject order, and the trial court’s recitation is
supported by the testimonial and documentary evidence. As such, we adopt
it herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/22/16, at 2-9. Mother and Father are
husband and wife, but they have been separated since June of 2015. Both
J-S47016-16
are high school teachers at different high schools. Mother teaches health
and physical education. Father teaches career education, driver’s education,
health, and physical education. Father is also the varsity soccer coach. In
addition to coaching at the high school during the high school season, Father
is involved in off-season and summer season soccer coaching.
On May 28, 2015, Father filed a complaint for primary physical custody
and shared legal custody of Child. Thereafter, Father changed his request
from primary physical custody to shared physical custody. On August 20,
2015, a custody conciliation conference was held, but no agreement was
reached. On September 15, 2015, the trial court adopted the conciliation
officer’s recommendation and entered a temporary order awarding shared
legal custody of Child to Mother and Father. Mother was awarded primary
physical custody, and Father was awarded partial physical custody of Child
on alternating weekends. The trial court order also directed a further
custody hearing to be held on October 30, 2015. The custody hearing was
continued to November 12, 2015 to obtain the testimony of Child’s therapist
to determine the best interest of Child.
The trial court held a custody hearing on November 12, 2015 and
November 19, 2015. At the hearing the trial court heard the testimony of
Mother; Father; J.A., a parent whose child plays on Father’s soccer team;
J.S., Child’s therapist; B.L., an aquatic instructor; S.W., Child’s paternal
grandmother; and M.A.C., Child’s maternal grandmother. On November 23,
-2-
J-S47016-16
2015, the trial court again awarded Mother primary physical custody, Father
partial physical custody on alternating weekends, and shared legal custody
of Child to both Mother and Father.
On December 23, 2015, Father filed a notice of appeal and a concise
statement of errors complained on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
On appeal, Father raises the following question for our review:
1. Whether the lower court erred in its application of the
factors under 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 5328(a) in determining the
best interest of the child?
Father’s Brief at 7.
In custody cases, 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 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., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa.Super.2012) (citation omitted).
With any custody case under the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S.
§§ 5321-5340, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. In
-3-
J-S47016-16
applying the Custody Act, a trial court must determine a child’s best
interests through consideration of the following sixteen factors:
§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall
determine the best interest of the child by considering all
relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors
which affect the safety of the child, including the following:
(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)
(relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement
with protective services).
(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.
-4-
J-S47016-16
(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.
(16) Any other relevant factor.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5328.
Father argues that the trial court misapplied the factors for
determining the best interest of Child pursuant to section 5328(a). Father’s
Brief at 11. Specifically, Father contends that the trial court “erred in finding
that Mother is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing
contact between Father and Child.” Id. at 13. Additionally, Father argues
that the trial court erred in finding that “Father’s employment as varsity
-5-
J-S47016-16
boys’ soccer coach prevents him from having sufficient [] time with [C]hild.”1
Id. at 17.
With regard to section 5328(a)(1), which party is more likely to
encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and
another party, the trial court found:
Mother is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and
continuing contact between Father and [C]hild, than is Father.
Despite a right of first refusal agreement between the parties, on
a number of occasions Father called his mother to care for
[Child] when he had a conflict, rather than Mother. This breach
of commitment made by him is a serious sign to the [trial] court
that he does not appropriately value either his word or Mother’s
relationship with [Child]. He has refused to permit [Child] to go
on a vacation with Mother and her family despite a history of
such events in the family. Mother has honored the agreement.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/22/16, at 11.
With regard to section 5328(a)(3), the trial court stated:
While both parties perform parental duties, Mother has
performed and continues to perform the majority of the parental
duties for [C]hild. She has consistently had more available time
in her schedule to spend with [C]hild and to attend to [C]hild’s
needs. She can get [C]hild to day care at a later and more
reasonable hour for [C]hild in the morning, and pick her up
earlier in the afternoon, providing more parent time. Prior to the
separation, Mother was for all intents and purposes, the parent
who transported [C]hild to and from daycare. She was the
major nurturing parent while the family was intact, and has
continued that situation into separation. All of the testimony
presented indicate[s] that Father is so involved in soccer that he
is simply not available at significant time for [C]hild because he
____________________________________________
1
While not specified in his brief, Father appears to challenge section
5328(a)(3), the parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the
child.
-6-
J-S47016-16
must attend various games, practices, training, and other sport-
related activities.
Id. at 11-12.
Moreover, the trial court stated it had “some problems with Father’s
credibility.” Id. at 16. The trial court stated that, “Father blamed Mother
for some of his problems” and “raised negative issues about the relationship
between Mother and [Child].” The trial court found that Father’s “hostility
colors those perceptions and makes it difficult to know the degree of their
accuracy.” Id. The trial court further found that Father “inaccurately
minimized the problems posed by his schedule and that much of his
testimony was confusingly difficult if not contradictory because of a variety
of inconsistencies contained therein.” Id. Consequently, the trial court
found that “an examination of the listed aspects of [C]hild’s life and her
relationship with her parents indicated that Mother as the primary custodial
parent would better serve [C]hild’s best interest.” Id. Father’s issue on
appeal seeks review of the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
determinations. Our standard of review, however, does not permit this
Court to re-find facts, re-weigh the evidence, or to impeach the credibility
determinations of the trial court. We may only reject the trial court’s
conclusions if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the
sustainable findings of the trial court. See C.R.F., III, 45 A.3d at 443.
Furthermore, the trial court analyzed each factor regarding custody and
-7-
J-S47016-16
found that, as stated above, the factors weighed in Mother’s favor. See Trial
Court Opinion, 1/22/16, at 11-16. We find no abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court
awarding primary physical custody to Mother, partial physical custody to
Father, and shared legal custody to both Mother and Father.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/2016
-8-
Circulated 09/07/2016 01:38 PM
,.,....... ~
( j
v.. :>
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A- S- l,J. CIV.ILACTION-LAW
Plaintiff
. v. No. Cl-15-05403
SUPER. CT. NO.: 2267 MDA 2015
...
'Defendant ......" n,
c:. z
r=.
~
,,,
-l
BY: GORBEY, JUDGE
--
~c.
n:;;:
::c,.~·
(1)_1•.
....., _:;
~-
:;;;
N
I'.)
:-.{)
M
0
):-....
OPINION SUR APPEAL
rt'!-,.
.
;1.::, -··
u,
.....,
:ir
..~"!..,
t:;1
r~, ·~ ,,,r
:,:, C.)
>l
N ~'f'J
Procedural History ("'":}
i.o
0
7:. (T)
:}
This matter was initiated on May 28, 2015, when a Complaint in Custody was
~· - J,l.,t.·lf..J•
filed by- (Father) agains-Mother) for custody of
·the parties' child-•
- • .,._ • t,.J. ··lt·tJ·
A, born on March 30, 2012. On June
19, 2015, an Order of Court was issued scheduling a Custody Conciliation Conference
for July 29, 201 S. An uncontested motion for continuance of the Conference and
waiver of custody case time requirements was fired on July 20, 2015 and approved by
the Court on July 21, 2015. The conference was held on August 20, 2015, and no
agreement was reached. On September 15, 2015, the Court adopted the Conference
Officer's recommended order and scheduled a hearing before the court for October 30,
2015. On October 30, the Court and the attorneys for the parties discussed the child's
ongoing participation in therapy and by agreement continued the matter until November
12, 2015 in order to allow both parents time to confer with the child's therapist. The
1
)
therapist, whose.testimony was deemed to be necessary, was directed to prepare a
written report to be sent to the attorneys.
A hearing was begun but not completed on November 12, 2015, and was
continued to November 19th, 2015 for the purpose of completing the testimony. On
,.,,.u. . .·. .
November 20, 2015, the Court issued a Custody Order giving shared legal custody bf
•••to the parties, primary physical custody to Mother and partial physical custody
to Father on alternating weekends and every Tuesday and Thursday evening.
On December 23, 2015, Father filed a notice of Appeal of the November 20
Order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Said Notice was served upon the Court with
a Concise Statement of Errors Complafned of On Appeal.
FACTUAL HISTORY . G,If• /,J,
t'
Father and Mother are husband and wife
. I
and••••
(
is their
biological daughter. The child lived with both parents from her birth to her parents' date
of separation in June of 2015 when Mother left the marital residence. {N.T. 14) Since
separation, Mother has had primary physical custody of the child and Father has had
partial physical custody on alternate weekends and specific weekday evenings. (N.T.
18)
Both parents are high school teachers at different schools. Father teaches
Career Education, Driver's Education, Health and Physical Education.(N.T. 13) Mother
teaches Health and Physical Education. (N.T. 173) Father is also the head varsity
soccer coach at his school". (N.T. 15)1 That position involves his coaching, monitoring
I
Although the hearing occurred on two separate dates, the two transcripts were paginated as one unit. The
citations to the transcript will therefore not refer to the hearing dates, but only the page numbers.
2
and supervising the players as they play, and. his. schedule is dominated
. ..
by his soccer
coaching duties. Outside of his school coaching, Father is also involved in off-season
and summer soccer (N.T. 17) The beginning of soccer season is the first "teen"
Monday in August. The season ends the second week in October, though it can go
beyond that if the team goes post-season. On Fridays,.starting sometime in March and
. .
, continuing for the rest of the month; there are pickup games. When the pickup
sessions end, Futsal league starts on Saturdays. The Futsal Saturday games continue
until school ends in June and Futsal2 is then scheduled for Tuesday and Thursday,
. running from8 to 10 a.m. until the beginning of the season in August. (N.T. 70-73). On
the first "teen" Monday of August, "two a day" practices begin, from 8 to 10 a.m. and 6
to 8 p.m. and last for one week, Monday through Friday. (NT 16 -17) Thereafter,
school and soccer league then begin. Mother mentioned other events that intruded on
Father's time with his daughter. For instance, he had to change their custody schedule
for the weekend before the hearing, because there was an all-star game he had to
attend for one of his soccer players. (N.T. 218) She also testified that "his soccer
schedule started in January and continues all the way up through summer. And as it
gets closer to the season, it becomes more intense and more involved." (N.T. 193) Both
parents testified to a number of occasions when his contact with his daughter had to be
changed, or he missed one of her activities because of a soccer event. (See, e.g., N.T.
64 (pickup from daycare), 85 {tumbling), 118-119 (library concert), 131 (therapist), 193
(swimming), 195 (dance)). Father informed the Court that he can make himself more
2Futsal
is an indoor soccer game with a small ball that doesn't bounce. lt is a form of
indoor soccer. N.T. 16.
3
)
available than his schedule indicates, because during the soccer season he has
assistants who can lead the practice. (N.T. 80) Mother said that he told her the same
thing throughqut their marriage, but never followed through. (N.T. 218, 247) Father has
. been more available for the child's activities in early 2015 after his lawyer told· him to be
more involved._(N.T. 195-196)
Mother has a full time teaching job during the school _year and teaches an
•. ,... .
· online course during the summer with a one hour a week commitment for five weeks.
(N.T. 174) Testimony was uncontradicted thatwhen Mother is not working h~attentt.
.. .
and concern was directed toward her daughter. Before separation she and••••
had a busy life, filled with activities for the child and a specific daily schedule. That
situation continued after separation also. (N.T. 74, .1.85) _Father admitted that prior to
•• ,. • ._a. .
their separation he did not spend much time with , his reason being that
6.M.W•·
Mother did not permit him to. He said she was rigid and kep on a tight
schedule which excluded him. (N.T. 60) Although April of 2015 was the first time he
had ever watched the child overnight, he explained to the court that he had been given
only limited opportunity to do so by Mother. (N.T. 128) Regarding medical
appointments, he explained that he only had made them for the child a few times, but If
he had been allowed by Mother he would have done so every time it was necessary ..
(N.T. 129)
Post separation, when each party had custody of the child alone, both engaged
in many Interesting activities
. ··"·"'· ,,.,,,. .....
with9llmlllfand both
. twe a healthy and organized
schedule and environment for her. (N.T. 19 et seq.) also has her own
activities such as gymnastics, dance and the like, for which the parents serve as
4
spectators. She has continuing swimming lessons, in which the parents are permitted
to participate in the water with her. Mother has always been the participating parent for
that event, and the swimming instructor told the court that the child is happy in class. ·
. . · 6.N.t.J• .
with her mother. When during one of Father's appearances, was acting
particularly active and energetic, he appeared tobe unsure and told theteacher he
didn'.1.J659 A.2d 1040, 442 Pa. Super 381 (1995) A shared custody arrangement may
be ordered by the Court if both parents are 1) capable of making reasonable child
rearing decisions. and willing and able to provide love and care for their children: 2) both
parents evidence a continuing desire. for active involvement in the child's life; 3) both
parents are recognized by the child as a source of security and love; 4) and a minimal
degree of cooperation between the parents are possible; Hill v. Hi!/, 619 A.2d 1086,
422 Pa: Super 533 (1993); In re Wes/eyJ.K, 445 A.2d 1243, 299 Pa. Super 504
(1982) Additionally, the Superior Court has directed that in making its decision, the trial
court must consider the factors set out in Section 5328 of the Pennsylvania Custody
Statute.
This Court included its §5328 conclusions in its order of November 20, 2015. An
expanded discussion of these items is as follows:
§5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
a. Factors - .
10
(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing
contact between the child and another party.
The Court finds that Mother Is more Hkely to encourage and permit frequent and .
continuing contact between Father and child, than Is Father. Despite a right of first
refusal agreement.Jletween the parties, on a number of occasions Father called his
~·H·W•. ·
mother to care for I JI: when he had a confHct, rather than Mother. This breach of
. ,. .....
. . .
,.lue either his word or Mother's relationship with
...,...,,.
a commitment made by him is a serious sign to the court that he does not appropriately
He has refused to permit
•• .. to go on a vacation with Mother and her family despite a history of such
events in the family. Mother has honored the agreement.
(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.
There was no past or present abuse by either parent. There has been no
involvement with the Children and Youth Social Service Agency. However, the Court is
somewhat taken aback by Father's belief that his 3 year old child's best interest will be
served by attending frequent high school soccer games and practices with him when
his attention is taken up with the players and the action, and the child is left to play
alone, without an assigned caretaker. The Court can appreciate Mother's concern
about the lack of supervision during those times.
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.
While both parties perform parental duties, Mother has performed and continues
to perform the majority of the parental duties for the child. She has consistently had
more available time in her schedule to spend with the child and to attend to the child's
11
)
')
needs. She can get the child to day care at a later and more reasonable hour for the
. .
child in the morning, and pick her up earlier in the afternoon, providing more parent
time. Prior to the separation, Mother was for all intents and purposes, the parent who
transported the child to and from daycare. She was the major nurturing parent while the
family was intact, and has continued that situation into the separation. All of the
'•
``·~·
.,
testimony presented indicate tha1.,Father is so involved in soccer that he is simply not
. . . . .·
available at significant times for-because he must attend various games,
. practices. training, and other sports-related activities:
(4) The n·eed for stability and continuity in the child's education, _family life and
community life. · ·
Both parents evidence a stability and Father continues to live in the marital
residence in which the child resided for all of her life. However, Mother has continued
the schedule of time and activities which the child experienced. prior to the parties'
separation, and has fewer extraneous distractions to interfere with her parenting
schedule.
(5) The availability of extended family.
.
Prior to separation, his parents visited with Father an``ther and•••
,.
Father has a close relationship with his family, who live in the Lancaster area.
.
every
Sunday ·afternoon. Father's mother would baby-sit
sees his parents often and the children of family members are W
,.
at various times. He now
7 's only
playmates when she is in his custody. Mother's family is not local. Her parents live in
New Jersey and her sisters live in Virginia. However, prior to separation there were a
number of yearly vislts back and forth and long vacation visits and it seems that these
12
,.
will continue since Mother has a close relationship with her family. While•••
would see father's parents more often, she clearly is connected to and will continue to
see mother's family. ·
(6) The child's sibling relationships.
There are no siblings.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the chHd's maturity and
judgment.
The child Is only three years of age and cannot express a preference.
(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.
.
'1,
This is a troublesome area. While Father has not explicitly attempted to turn the
child against Mother, some of his attitudes and behavior have that potential. He
exhibited anger in nts demeanor on the witness stand that was very obvious to the
court. Along with that anger, he expr4';d hostile and negative views of Mother, such
as when he failed to attend one of Q 2 's activities and expressly blamed it on
Mother to the child, saying that "Mommy forgot to tell me." He has failed to confer with
Mother about several important and basic aspects of the child's life: he enrolled this
Catholic child in a Lutheran Sunday School without telling Mother-; he failed to tell
,r.
Mother in a reasonable time about -s hurting her head and exhibiting physical
symptoms of great concern to~ •he has breached a right of first refusal agr~eme.~t:
and. seems
. to prefer to have .
watched by his parents; h~. h!=IS requested a
. .· ,, .. ,,,
complex 50/50 custody arrangement and expressed satisfaction that such would keep
. e_•.
Mother from taking the child on long visits with her family. As she grows, 'illlll will
13
)
certainly learn from such behavior that Father does not value her continued relationship ·
with Mother .and Mother's family.
(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.
Both of these parties can maintain a loving stable nurturing relationship with th~ .
child. It was clear to the court that both parents love the child and are dedicated to her
welfare. However, the court is concerned about the possibility that stress has created
nervous habits for the child, and is not convinced by Father's negative attitude toward
giving the child help in the form of therapy. The Court also has concerns about Father's
conveying negative attitudes to the child about Mother and Mother's family.
(10) Which party lsmore likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional,
developmental, educational and special needs of the child.
) Again, both parties can parent according to this child's nee,.~ut the Court sees
Mother as having the edge. For instance, her requirement that-go to bed on
time was based on a reading of her child's crankiness when tired; Father attributed it to
mother's rigidity as a "drill sergeant". It appears to the court that Father is allowing his
hostility toward Mother to interfere with his pae1~ decision making, and he must learn
to curtail this tendency. Father's belief that-will be benefitted by being with
him full time and attending his soccer activities also concerns the court. Attendance at
the games every now and then wjth appr(¥>riate supervision will undoubtedly benefit the
child. But for more than that, we must remember that soccer is father's thing, not the
prefere'e~ a three year eld little,.girl. Mother appears to the Court to be more in sync
with -·s needs and preferences.
_.,
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties. . ·•
14
) .
The parents live ten to twenty minutes from each otlier. "They can use the same
day care provider and are close enough to make alternate appropriate arrangements
for the child.
(12) Each party's availability. to care for the child or ability to make appropriate
child-care arrangements.
Mother is more available to care for the .child, since she does not have the
equivalent of Father's extra-curricular soccer activities. Both can certainly make
appropriate child-care arrangements, in that they have each other and Father's mother
available.
(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness of the parties to
cooperate with one another ....
There is a certain level of conflict here, mostly seen in Father's hostile attitude
•
and behavior toward Mother, andhis tendency to blame her for his shcrtcomlngs in
relation to
G· . The Court is· concerned that this approach will grow worse as the
child grows older, and cautions Father to examine his own behavior and beliefs rather
than blame others for any problems he has with the custody matter.
(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party .Gr member of a party's
household.
There is no drug or alcohol abuse in either party's household.
•.
(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's
household.
Neither party has a problematic mental or physical condition that will interfere
with care of the
. . child..,,.,
Consideration of the above factors have convinced this Court that primary
physical custody In Mother would serve Elizabeth's best interest. Mother is more likely
15
'l
) )
)
to promote the child's relationship with Father, she has continued into separation her
provision of the parenting duties connected with the child, she has more free time to
devote to the child, she has less hostility toward father than he has toward her, which
will maintain the custody arrangement without unnecessary difficulties.
Mother believes that the child is doi.ng fine under the current schedule, and the
his problems, such as when he asserted to
.
Court accepts her opinion. (N.'T. 242) At the hearing, Father blamed Mother for some of
•s ~ '
athat he missed a school meeting
because Mother hadn't reminded hi``ather also raised negative issues about the
relationship between Mother and~, such as his perception of Mother's rigidity
and negativity in scheduling and interaction and the child's negative body language
when with Mother. ( N.T. 35-38) However, the Court finds that his hostility colors those
perceptions and makes it difficult to know the degree of their accuracy. The Court also
finds that he inaccurately minimized the problems posed by his schedule and that much
of his testimony was confusingly difficult if not contradictory because of a variety of
inconsistencies contained therein. The Court therefore has some problems with
•
Father's credibility. This does not mean that the Court denies that Father is not a loving
and nurturing father; it is just that an examination of the listed aspects of the child's life
and her relationship with her parents indicates that Mother as the primary custodial
parent would better serve the child's best interests.
CONCLUSION
Based on the abov~.cuk1~' the Court finds that Mother is the appropriate
primary custodian of and that Father has not provided the facts
16
.·· t
·1
). }
supportinga shared custodyarrangement. The Order of November 20, 2015 shall
remain in effect.
BY THE COURT:
'~
LESLIE GORBEY, JUDGE
Attest/rd/.)J. ' ",_A~ a.J
~t~
1
Copies to: ·
· Michael E. McHale, "Esqui"re../
Lisa J. McCoy, Esquire../
NOTICE Of ENTRY OF OROF:B OR DECREE
PURSUANT TO PA. B.C.P. NO: zse
NOTIFJCATION • THE ATif.\CHED DOCUMENT
nus
HJ\$ BEEM Ffl..ED IN CASE
PROTHONOTARY OF L-'\NCt\STER CO., PA
DATE: /-ad..-{