M.J.T. v. C.K.J.

J-A14042-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.J.T. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
C.K.J. :
:
Appellant : No. 77 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2019
in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Civil Division at No(s): 1948 of 2017D
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2020
C.K.J. (“Mother”) appeals, pro se, from the December 12, 2019,1 Order
(the “2019 Custody Order”) granting her supervised partial physical custody
of her male child, C.J.J. (born in September 2012) (“Child”), and granting
M.J.T. (“Father”) sole legal and physical custody of Child. We affirm.
1 Mother’s pro se Notice of Appeal indicates that she is appealing from an
Order dated January 10, 2020. However, the record reveals that no order
was entered into the docket on January 10, 2020, and Mother’s Notice of
Appeal was filed on that date. Thus, Mother may have mistakenly entered the
date on which she filed her appeal where she should have entered the date of
the order from which she appeals. Mother’s appeal properly lies from the trial
court’s December 12, 2019, Custody Order. See J.P. v. J.S., 214 A.3d 1284,
1286 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that “a custody order is final after the trial
court has completed its hearings on the merits and the resultant order
resolves the pending custody claims between the parties.” (quotation marks
omitted)).
J-A14042-20
In its Explanation of Decision attached to its December 12, 2019,
Custody Order, the trial court set forth the factual background and procedural
history of this appeal, which we adopt herein. See Explanation of Decision,
12/12/19, at 1-9 (unnumbered). In addition, we note the following.
On December 12, 2019, the trial court issued a custody Order granting
sole legal and physical custody of Child to Father. See Order of Court,
12/12/19, at 1. Mother was granted supervised partial physical custody, as
facilitated by a mental health clinician with a Ph.D., who could provide a
supervised therapeutic environment for Mother to visit with Child. Id. The
Order had additional provisions for the communication between Mother and
Father, transportation to and from visitation, Mother’s mental health
treatment, and Child’s therapy. Id. at 1-2. Accompanying its Order, the court
issued an extensive explanation of its decision analyzing the sixteen custody
factors. See Explanation of Decision, 12/12/19, at 1-26 (unnumbered).
On January 10, 2020, Mother filed a pro se 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).
In her brief on appeal, Mother raises 53 issues. Mother’s second issue,
the issue most directly relating to the 2019 Custody Order, is as follows:
2. Did the [trial? c]ourt commit an error of law by holding a trial
in November of 2019 to assess facts that were blocked from
August 28, 2019[,] through that date (5 hearings)[; the] 16
factors were not consider[ed,] nor [Child’s] preference[,] which is
[M]other (according to his answer in November 20, 2019)[;] those
-2-
J-A14042-20
things should have been considered in prior hearings before a
change of custody was made[?]
Mother’s Brief at 14-15.
In custody cases under the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-
5340, our standard of review is as follows:
We review a trial court’s determination in a custody case for
an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because
we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must
accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the
evidence. We defer to the trial [court] regarding credibility and
the weight of the evidence. The trial [court]’s deductions or
inferences from its factual findings, however, do not bind this
Court. We may reject the trial court’s conclusions only if they
involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual
findings.
C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506-07 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Additionally,
[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) (citation omitted).
In any custody case, the primary concern is the best interest of the
child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328, 5338; see also W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d
323, 326 (Pa. Super. 2015). In assessing the child’s best interest, the trial
court must consider the best interest factors, set forth in Section 5328(a) as
follows:
§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
-3-
J-A14042-20
(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.
(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, education and special
needs of the child.
-4-
J-A14042-20
(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.A. § 5328. “All of the [best interest] factors … are required to be
considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A.,
33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Additionally, when
a trial court awards custody, it “shall delineate the reasons for its decision on
the record in open court or in a written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5323(d).
Mother contends that the trial court erred in granting Father sole
physical custody of Child without a consideration of the sixteen custody
factors. See Mother’s Brief at 25-26.
Here, the trial court thoughtfully, and at length, considered each of the
sixteen custody factors in its Explanation of Decision, which we incorporate
herein. See Explanation of Decision, 12/12/19, at 9-28 (unnumbered). The
-5-
J-A14042-20
trial court found that factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15 favored Father,
and that factors 2, 2.1, 6, 11, 12, and 14 either did not apply, or ultimately,
did not favor either party. Following a thorough review, we conclude that the
trial court’s findings that it is in Child’s best interest to reside with Father, are
supported by the record, and, accordingly, we discern no abuse its discretion.
C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 443.
We turn to the remainder of Mother’s claims on appeal, many of which
contain nested claims, or are duplicative, argumentative, and at times
nonsensical. See Mother’s Brief at 14-37. We further note that Mother’s brief
does not conform with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule
2119 requires that the argument “be divided into as many parts as there are
questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in distinctive
type or in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein,
followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed
pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Mother’s argument section, while separated
by enumerated sections, is replete with rambling, repetitious, and conclusory
statements, and references to attachments not entered into evidence.
Similarly, although Mother cites to various Pennsylvania cases and statutes,
she does not connect her argument to her quoted authorities.
We remind Mother,
[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon
the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
-6-
J-A14042-20
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284–85 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations
omitted).
Despite the deficiencies of the brief, we have reviewed Mother’s claims,
and conclude that they lack merit. In sum, the trial court appropriately,
thoroughly, and thoughtfully considered the sixteen custody factors and made
its decision in the best interests of Child. C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 443. Despite
Mother’s voluminous filings and myriad arguments, we do not find that the
trial court abused its discretion or made any error of law in its rulings. C.R.F.,
45 A.3d at 443. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court Order.
Order affirmed. Application to File Post-Submission Communication
denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2020
-7-