R.&L.E. v. S.B. and J.W. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J-A07044-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    R. & L.E.                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                         :
    :
    :
    S.B. AND J.W.                           :
    :
    :   No. 1693 MDA 2019
    APPEAL OF: S.B.                         :
    Appeal from the Order Entered October 2, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
    2013-CV-4024-CU
    BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                         FILED MAY 07, 2020
    S.B. (“Mother”) appeals from a custody order granting R.E. and L.E.
    (“Great Grandparents”) primary physical custody and Mother and J.W.
    (“Father”) partial physical custody. Mother argues the court erred in making
    her custody contingent on the payment of Great-Grandparents’ counsel fees,
    in making her custody contingent on Father’s completion of directives, and in
    failing to apply the presumption in favor of parents in this custody action
    between parents and third parties. We affirm the award of custody but remand
    for the trial court to allow Mother’s custody periods to resume before Mother
    pays Great-Grandparents’ counsel fees.
    Mother and Father have one child, A.W. (“Child”), born in July 2012.
    After Child’s birth Mother, Father, and Child moved to the home of Great-
    Grandparents, who reside in Dauphin County. In 2013, Mother stated she
    J-A07044-20
    intended to move herself and Child from the home. Great-Grandparents filed
    a custody action, as they were concerned for Child’s safety. In July 2013, the
    trial court granted the parties shared legal custody, but granted primary
    physical custody to Great-Grandparents and Father, who still resided with
    Great-Grandparents. Great-Grandparents were to supervise Father’s custody
    time. Mother, who had moved to Blair County, had partial custody every
    weekend.
    The custody terms were modified a few times, with minor changes. In
    August 2016, the parties entered into an agreed custody order, granting
    Great-Grandparents primary physical custody and Mother and Father each
    periods of partial physical custody. Legal custody was shared. In January
    2017, following a custody hearing, the court entered a final custody order that
    provided that the parties had shared legal custody. Great-Grandparents had
    primary physical custody, and Mother and Father had partial physical custody
    every other weekend during the school year and a two-week vacation period
    for each parent in the summer.
    Mother was directed to comply with a number of provisions including
    that she subscribe to and use Our Family Wizard, an information-sharing
    website for separated parties. Mother also had to maintain drug rehabilitation,
    attend group and individual counseling, undergo periodic drug tests and
    provide   quarterly   updates   about    test   results   to   Father   and   Great-
    Grandparents, obtain counseling for anger, and enroll in a 12-week parenting
    program. The order had similar requirements for Father.
    -2-
    J-A07044-20
    On August 21, 2019, Great-Grandparents filed an emergency petition
    for special relief asserting, among other things, that Mother had failed to
    return Child on Sunday, August 18. Great-Grandparents also filed a petition
    for contempt asserting Mother violated the prior court order by failing to return
    Child and in failing to comply with terms of the January 2017 order, including
    failing to use Our Family Wizard, undergo drug tests and provide quarterly
    updates, enroll in counseling for anger, and enroll in a 12-week parenting
    program.
    The trial court granted Great-Grandparents’ petition for emergency
    relief, directing Mother to return Child. It scheduled a hearing on the petition
    for contempt.
    On August 26, 2019, Great-Grandparents filed a second emergency
    petition for special relief seeking immediate return of Child. Mother had failed
    to transfer custody as directed in the prior order. The court granted the
    petition and again directed Mother to return Child to Great-Grandparents. The
    court also suspended Mother’s custody rights.
    In September 2019, Mother filed an emergency petition for special relief
    and a petition for modification of custody, seeking primary physical custody.
    The Court denied the petition for special relief and scheduled a hearing for the
    petition for modification.
    The court held a hearing on the petition for contempt and the petition
    for modification. The court summarized the testimony from the hearing:
    -3-
    J-A07044-20
    I first heard testimony from Mother and Father regarding
    issues raised in Great-Grandparents’ contempt petition filed
    on August 21, 2019. Mother testified that she initially signed
    up for Our Family Wizard but did not continue to stay signed
    up for Our Family Wizard for communication with Great-
    Grandparents because she believed that she and Great-
    Grandparents were getting along and communicating better
    without utilizing the program. Great-Grandparents alleged
    that they sent seventeen messages to Mother via Our Family
    Wizard, and Mother testified that she did not receive or
    respond to any of those messages. . . .
    Mother testified that she has undergone drug rehabilitation,
    that she continues to go to drug rehabilitation once a month,
    and that she has been sober for a bit more than six and a
    half years. However, Mother had not provided Great-
    Grandparents with quarterly reports as required as to the
    progress on her drug rehabilitation.
    Although Mother testified that she enrolled in counseling to
    address unspecified issues that she has, she admitted that
    she did not enroll in counseling to specifically address issues
    concerning anger and ongoing arguments between her and
    the Father. . . .
    Mother completed Children First in Allegheny County, but
    the certificate of completion provided by Mother established
    that the course she completed was 4-hour separated
    parents course, rather than a 12-week parenting class. . . .
    Mother and Father conceded that they did not return Child
    to Great-Grandparents on Sunday, August 18, 2019.
    Based on the facts elicited from Mother and Father’s
    testimony, I found both to be in contempt of various
    provisions of the January 30, 2017 custody order and
    parenting plan, and I relayed this finding to the parties on
    the record.
    I then received testimony regarding Mother’s petition for
    modification of custody filed on September 5, 2019.
    Mother, who has had problems with drug addiction, testified
    that she has been seeking counseling and has been clean
    for nearly seven years. She is employed at a DirecTV call
    center and lives in a two-bedroom apartment in Altoona with
    -4-
    J-A07044-20
    her other child, a 1-year old daughter. Mother testified that
    Child gets along well with the 1-year-old. Mother’s mom,
    stepfather, and brother live nearby in Altoona, and Father’s
    family lives in the Altoona area as well. Mother testified that
    she gets along pretty well with Father’s family and believes
    that as Mother, she should have more time with Child,
    especially in the summer when Child is not in school.
    Mother’s primary means of communicating with Great-
    Grandparents is via text messaging. Mother testified that
    this had been a fairly effective method of communication,
    but in the last six months, this communication “hasn’t been
    working out very well.” Mother claims that the last several
    times she has called Great-Grandparents to speak with Child
    (when Child was in Great-Grandparents’ custody), Great-
    Grandparents have denied her the opportunity to speak with
    Child. Mother also testified that Great-Grandparents have
    accused her of coaching Child to say certain things to a
    judge.
    ...
    Almost all of Father’s family lives in Altoona. Father has no
    family in Elizabethtown, Dauphin County other than his
    grandmother (who is Child’s Great-Grandmother). . . .
    Child’s maternal grandmother (Mother’s mom) testified that
    she has limited interaction with Great-Grandparents. The
    only interaction she has with Great-Grandparents is when
    she meets them at a Sheetz in Lewistown to exchange Child
    when Mother or Father are unavailable to do so. She
    testified that during the exchanges at Sheetz, Great-
    Grandparents do not talk to her at all. She has observed
    that when Great-Grandfather is present at Sheetz for the
    exchanges, Child will sit on his lap. Maternal grandmother
    finds this to be odd since Child is 7 years old and somewhat
    heavy. She also believes it to be odd that when she is
    watching Child in Altoona, Child will take off her shirt before
    running around and playing in the house.
    Maternal grandmother believes that Mother is capable of
    raising Child since Mother raises a 1-year-old on her own,
    has her own apartment and vehicle, and has held the same
    job for two years. She also believes that Child would be
    better off living with Mother in Altoona because most of
    Mother and Father’s relatives live in Altoona, whereas the
    -5-
    J-A07044-20
    only relatives of Child that live in the Dauphin County-area
    are Great-Grandparents. She further testified that Child is
    happy and content when she spends time with Mother.
    When asked on cross-examination about her criminal
    record, maternal grandmother admitted to having a DUI last
    April, for which she completed an ARD program. She
    testified that she also went to drug and alcohol counseling
    and continues to attend group meetings. She also admitted
    that twelve years ago, she was charged with filling a pain
    pill prescription that was in someone else’s name.
    Maternal grandmother acknowledged that at an August
    2019 custody conciliation hearing, she was involved in a
    confrontation in which she approached Great-Grandparents,
    accused them of engaging in cruel behavior towards Child,
    and vowed to pursue avenues to end such behavior. She
    also recalled that on August 23, 2019, after I issued an
    Order directing Mother to immediately return Child to Great-
    Grandparents, the Great-Grandparents sat in their car for
    hours across the street from her (maternal grandmother’s)
    house, allegedly looking into her window. She eventually
    approached Great-Grandparents’ car and asked what they
    were doing.
    Cross-examination of maternal grandmother also revealed
    that she recently accused Great-Grandfather of sexually
    assaulting Child, and that prior to that, she had accused
    Child’s paternal grandfather of sexually assaulting Child.
    She acknowledged that both accusations were investigated
    by authorities and were both determined to be unfounded.
    Dr. Jaeme Schwartz-Bogrette (“Counselor”), who owns
    Cocoa Counseling Center in Hershey and is Child’s current
    counselor, testified that Child has been a client of Cocoa
    Counseling since February 2017. Child currently attends
    counseling once a week and is transported to the sessions
    by Great-Grandparents, who also pay for the sessions and
    are “extremely” involved in Child’s counseling. She testified
    that Child is bright, kind, gentle, and energetic. She has
    been working with Child on issues of self-regulation and self-
    disclosure and plans to also work on issues of self-esteem,
    self-identity, and empathy. Dr. Schwartz-Bogrette has
    diagnosed Child with oppositional defiant disorder,
    generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress
    -6-
    J-A07044-20
    disorder. [On cross-examination, Counselor testified that
    the PTSD stemmed from “the trauma from being removed
    from parentals,” and clarified that it was not from losing her
    parents, but from “[b]eing taken from a parental unit.” N.T.,
    9/27/19, at 61.]
    Counselor testified that Child behaves differently
    immediately after she spends time with Mother and Father
    Specifically, she has noticed that after having contact with
    Mother and Father, Child displays an increase in self-
    negativity, swearing, and aggression. Counselor observes,
    for example, that when Child is drawing, she will harshly
    break down on the pencil, break the pencil, and draw on
    herself. According to Counselor, this type of behavior is
    often [a] mark[] of a child experiencing trauma and raises
    concerns about future self-harm. She believes that changes
    in the dynamics of Child’s visitations with Mother and Father
    are necessary to avoid continuation of this behavior.
    Counselor recalled that Child recently told her about a visit
    at Father’s house which seemed to be uncomfortable for
    Child. Child relayed to Counselor that she (Child) was
    visiting Father’s house on September 17, 2019 when Mother
    stopped by with her 1-year-old daughter. According to
    Counselor, Child seemed surprised to see Mother at Father’s
    house and seemed to believe that Mother was not supposed
    to be there.
    When asked about the maternal grandmother’s sexual
    assault allegations against Great-Grandfather, Counselor
    testified that she has seen nothing that would lead her to
    believe that Child was sexually or physically abused by
    Great-Grandfather. Moreover, she testified that she believes
    Child is 100 percent safe in Great-Grandparents’ home. She
    has observed that Great-Grandparents are loving, caring,
    and protective with Child and that there is a “bond of
    connection” between them. Counselor believes that it would
    “not at all” be in Child's best interest to grant primary
    custody to Mother and prevent Great-Grandparents from
    having contact with Child.
    Child’s former kindergarten teacher (“Teacher”) testified
    that Child was very respectful and that Great-Grandparents
    always insisted that Child have good manners. She observed
    that Child was very happy when she was with Great-
    -7-
    J-A07044-20
    Grandparents, but she also recalled that Child would
    sometimes exhibit an anxiousness on Mondays that would
    dissipate by midweek. She recalled that on a number of
    occasions, she asked Child whether she was going to
    Mother’s house for the upcoming weekend, and Child’s
    response would be a “very strong no.”
    Teacher testified that Child was far above average
    academically, especially in the areas of grammar and
    writing, and she believed that this was largely because
    Great-Grandparents always ensure that Child completed her
    schoolwork. She recalled that Great-Grandparents were
    heavily involved in Child’s education and that they would
    often bring items (such as snacks and coats) to the school
    for less fortunate children who could not afford these items.
    She testified that Great-Grandparents always attended
    parent-teacher conferences, asked questions, and were
    willing to work with Child on areas that needed
    improvement. Mother and Father did not communicate with
    Teacher about Child’s progress in school, nor did they attend
    parent-teacher conferences. According to teacher, Child’s
    homework was always completed when she was in the
    custody of Great-Grandparents, but sometimes when Child
    was in Mother or Father’s custody, Child’s homework was
    not completed.
    Teacher testified that although Child was quiet, she had a
    lot of friends. Teacher also recalled that Great-Grandparents
    often took a less fortunate child with them when they went
    to events with Child and that this helped Child develop
    friendships with many children.
    Great-Grandparents (Great-Grandmother, who is 71 years
    old; and Great-Grandfather, who is 74 years old) live in
    Elizabethtown with their 50-year-old son (Child’s paternal
    grandfather).[1] Great-Grandparents’ home contains three
    bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a
    computer room, and a toy room. Great-Grandmother
    testified that Child sleeps in Great-Grandmother’s room, but
    Child has her own bed in that room. She noted that if Child
    slept in her own room, the room would be on the far side of
    ____________________________________________
    1Child’s paternal grandfather only “partially” lives with Great-Grandparents.
    N.T., 9/27/149, at 75.
    -8-
    J-A07044-20
    the house, and Great-Grandmother would be unable to hear
    if Child got up in the middle of the night. Great-Grandfather
    sleeps in a different room than Great-Grandmother and
    Child. Great-Grandmother testified that Child enjoys staying
    at Great-Grandparents’ house where Child has a hermit
    crab, a fish, a dog, a cat, and is surrounded by various farm
    animals. Child also has her own pool, swing set, trampoline,
    two toy houses, a princess carriage, and two bicycles.
    Great-Grandmother testified that she is retired, in good
    health, and is able to take care of Child’s physical, mental,
    and emotional needs. She bathes child, takes Child to all
    appointments, and partakes in other recreational activities
    with child, including swimming, cooking, shopping, and trips
    to parks and amusement parks.
    When in the custody of Great-Grandparents, Child attends
    school Monday through Friday and sometimes attends
    counseling right after school. Great-Grandmother testified
    that she and her husband attend all of Child’s parent-
    teacher conferences and that neither Mother nor Father
    have attended any of Child’s parent-teacher conferences
    from preschool through first grade. She further stated that
    Child does well in all school subjects except for math, for
    which Great-Grandparents have hired a tutor for Child. Child
    has several friends in the Elizabethtown area, and she has
    an aunt that lives in the Elizabethtown area, whom she sees
    five to six times a week.
    Great-Grandmother testified that subsequent to the August
    weekend on which Mother did not return child to Great-
    Grandparents, Child missed the Monday and Tuesday of the
    following school week, which happened to be the first two
    days of second grade. Child currently attends Conewago
    Elementary School, but Great-Grandmother testified that
    Mother had previously attempted to enroll Child in school in
    Altoona without having permission to do so. According to
    Great-Grandmother, Mother’s failure to return child on the
    one weekend in August arises out of an August conciliation
    conference that was held pursuant to a previous contempt
    petition filed by Mother. Great-Grandmother stated that all
    the charges in Mother’s contempt petition were dropped
    following the conciliation conference, and she believes that
    this is the point at which Mother and Father decided not to
    return Child to Great-Grandparents.
    -9-
    J-A07044-20
    2In that petition, Mother alleged that on one Friday in
    January 2019, Great-Grandmother refused to bring
    Child to the Lewistown Sheetz for a weekend custody
    exchange. Great-Grandmother testified that she did
    not bring the Child to the Sheetz on the date in
    question because there was a snowstorm that day.
    Great-Grandmother communicates with Mother and Father
    through text messaging, and she will also speak with them
    at the weekly custody exchanges at Sheetz, at which point
    they usually discuss Child’s homework and other school-
    related matters. She testified that she signed up for Our
    Family Wizard in February 2017 and has maintained her
    subscription to said program, but neither Mother nor Father
    have responded to any of the messages she has posted on
    the program over the last two years.
    Great-Grandmother testified that she notifies Mother and
    Father of Child’s medical appointments, but neither Mother
    nor Father come to Child’s appointments, nor does she
    believe that they have accessed Child’s medical records. She
    recounted two notable medical events involving Child, both
    which occurred when Child was in Father’s custody. In one
    event, Child’s fingers were smashed in a house door, and
    Child needed a splint for a broken finger. In the second
    event, Child was in Father’s car when it rolled down a hill.
    According to Great-Grandmother, Father refused to seek
    medical treatment for Child following the car incident, so
    Great-Grandparents took Child to the hospital by
    ambulance. Great-Grandmother testified that she and her
    husband recently secured medical insurance for Child
    because Mother and Father never did so.
    ...
    Great-Grandmother also discussed her concerns about
    Mother having custody of Child. She testified that Mother is
    irresponsible, and first-grade journal entries written by Child
    (provided by Great-Grandmother's counsel) recounted
    occasions on which Child had been left to feed and care for
    Mother’s 1-year-old or on which Child had been left home
    alone with the 1-year-old. She also expressed unease over
    the fact that Mother’s boyfriend and stepfather recently
    attempted to show Child how to shoot a B.B. gun.
    - 10 -
    J-A07044-20
    Great-Grandmother is also concerned that if Mother is
    granted primary custody of Child, maternal grandmother
    would have to watch the child when Mother is at work. She
    testified that when Child is in the care of maternal
    grandmother, Child has to sleep in the same bed with
    maternal grandmother. She also relayed apprehension
    about maternal grandmother’s volatile behavior, recounting
    several recent incidents. She recalled that at a recent
    custody conciliation conference, maternal grandmother
    came up to her outside of the conciliation room and
    repeatedly threatened her verbally by telling her (Great-
    Grandmother) that she was “going down.” She also recalled
    that on the same occasion, maternal grandmother looked in
    Great-Grandfather’s face and referred to him as the devil.
    Great-Grandfather told maternal grandmother to stop
    talking to him, but she continued to talk. According to Great-
    Grandmother, a sheriff was summoned to stand outside the
    custody conciliation room until the conference was over.
    Great-Grandmother additionally recalled the occasion on
    which she and her husband went to Altoona to retrieve Child
    after the issuance of the court's August 23, 2019 Order
    directing Mother to immediately return Child to Great-
    Grandparents. She recalled that while she and her husband
    were waiting in a parking lot for the Sheriff’s office to arrive
    for a wellness check, maternal grandmother drove child
    around the block, came back, and then approached Great-
    Grandparents’ vehicle. Maternal grandmother then
    proceeded to scream and curse at Great-Grandparents,
    accusing Great-Grandfather of sexually assaulting child,
    taking pictures of their vehicle and license plate. Great-
    Grandmother testified that she is concerned for Child’s
    safety around maternal grandmother.
    Great-Grandmother also recounted four sexual assault
    allegations made by the maternal grandmother, all which
    were ultimately determined to be baseless. Of the
    allegations recounted were the allegations against Great-
    Grandfather and Child’s paternal grandfather discussed
    above. A third allegation was lodged against Great-
    Grandmother’s grandson (Father’s brother), but an
    investigation revealed that the accused was in prison at the
    time of the alleged assault, and, therefore, the allegation
    could not have been truthful. The fourth allegation was
    raised against another one of Great-Grandmother’s
    - 11 -
    J-A07044-20
    grandsons; however, this allegation crumbled when an
    investigation revealed that the accused grandson was in fact
    living in Tennessee.
    Great-Grandmother believes that she and her husband
    should be making all decisions for Child because it can be
    difficult to get in contact with Mother and Father when
    certain decisions need to be made and because Mother and
    Father typically have not been involved with Child’s
    schooling and medical appointments. Regarding a physical
    custody schedule, Great-Grandmother believes that it would
    be in the best interest for Mother and Father to drive down
    to the Dauphin-County area to see Child and possibly take
    her to the Elizabethtown Library to help Child with
    schoolwork. Great-Grandmother believes that Child could go
    back to spending alternating weekends in Altoona with
    Mother and Father once Mother and Father “improve
    themselves.”
    Trial Court Opinion, filed Nov. 13, 2019, at 4-13 (“1925(a) Op.”) (citations to
    record omitted).
    Following the hearing, the court applied the custody factors and awarded
    primary custody to Great-Grandparents, with partial physical custody to
    parents every other weekend and two weeks for each parent in the summer.
    The court also ordered that, for one evening each week, Mother and Father
    could take Child to the library and dinner. The order provided that Mother’s
    and Father’s custody periods would begin after Great-Grandparents’ counsel
    fees were paid and upon “proof of abiding by” the directives of the prior order:
    The weekend following completion of payment to [Great-
    Grandparents’] counsel under the Contempt Order issued
    September 27, 2019, and proof of abiding by Paragraphs
    61, 83, 85, 86, 87 and 88, Mother and Father shall have
    partial physical custodial responsibilities of the child.
    Order, dated Oct. 2, 2019, at ¶ 11.
    - 12 -
    J-A07044-20
    Mother filed a timely Notice of Appeal. She raises the following issues
    for our review:
    1. Did the Court abuse its discretion in the conditions that
    the Appellant had to pay the opposing parties [counsel] fees
    as a condition of the restoration of her custody rights?
    2. Whether trial court abused its discretion in placing
    conditions on the restoration of Mother’s custody rights on
    the actions of individuals, mainly those of the Father over
    whom she has no control.
    3. The Trial Court abused its discretion in not following 23
    [Pa.C.S.A.] § 5327 when determining primary physical
    custody in this matter.
    Mother’s Br. at 8 (proposed answers omitted).
    Mother first argues that the court erred in making the restoration of her
    custody rights contingent on the payment of Great-Grandparents’ counsel
    fees. The trial court agreed, acknowledging that “payment of [counsel] fees
    to [G]reat-[G]randparents has no bearing on Child’s best interests.” 1925(a)
    Op. at 17. We agree and remand so that the trial court can amend its order
    to remove this provision. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) (noting the court shall
    award custody by “determin[ing] the best interest of the child by considering
    all relevant factors”).
    Mother next argues that the court erred by directing that the restoration
    of her custody rights were contingent on Father completing certain actions, as
    she has no control over [Father’s] actions.
    The Order provided:
    The weekend following completion of payment to [Great-
    Grandparents’] counsel under the Contempt Order issued
    - 13 -
    J-A07044-20
    September 27, 2019, and proof of abiding by Paragraphs
    61, 83, 85, 86, 87 and 88, Mother and Father shall have
    partial physical custodial responsibilities of the child.
    Order, dated Oct. 2, 2019, at ¶ 11.
    The trial court stated that it did not intend to impose a condition which
    made restoration of Mother’s custody rights dependent on Father’s compliance
    with the order. 1925(a) Op. at 18. It stated that it “intended to set forth
    specific actions that each parent must take in order to restore their own
    respective custodial rights.” Id. It concluded Mother’s claim is “unfounded” as
    “that was not [the court’s] intention in imposing the condition.” Id.
    In her brief, Mother states that “[g]iven that the court will only require
    Mother’s compliance to the Order, the Appellant deems this issue resolved.”
    Mother’s Br. at 29. She has therefore abandoned this issue.
    In her final issue, Mother argues that the court abused its discretion in
    failing to determine custody based on the statutory presumption that as
    between a parent and a nonparent, the parent is entitled to custody. Mother
    argues that Great-Grandparents did not present the requisite clear and
    convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. She argues that Child’s
    therapist attributed Child’s PTSD and anxiety to the “trauma of being taken
    from” her parents and provided no basis for her opinion that Mother should
    not have primary custody. Mother’s Br. at 31-32 (quoting N.T., 9/27/19, at
    61). She notes that Child’s tutor testified that Child did not complete her
    homework when in Mother’s care, but also said that she never attempted to
    contact Mother regarding this issue. Mother also notes that Great-
    - 14 -
    J-A07044-20
    Grandmother interpreted a drawing by Child to conclude Child was not being
    properly cared for, but also stated that “it’s a little girls’ imagination. But
    everything else is--.” Id. at 32.
    We review a custody order for an abuse of discretion. G.A. v. D.L., 
    72 A.3d 264
    , 268 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Collins v. Collins, 
    897 A.2d 466
    ,
    471 (Pa.Super. 2006)). We must accept a trial court’s factual findings when
    the record supports them, and we defer to the trial court’s credibility
    determinations. 
    Id.
     We must determine “whether the trial court’s conclusions
    are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Collins,
    
    897 A.2d at 471
    ). We will reject the trial court’s conclusions “only if they
    involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings
    of the trial court.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Collins, 
    897 A.2d at 471
    ).
    The Custody Act requires a trial court to consider all of the Section
    5328(a) best interests factors when “ordering any form of custody.” 23
    Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). A trial court must “delineate the reasons for its decision
    when making an award of custody either on the record or in a written opinion.”
    R.L. v. M.A., 
    209 A.3d 391
    , 395 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting S.W.D. v. S.A.R.,
    
    96 A.3d 396
    , 401 (Pa. Super. 2014)). A trial court does not need to explain
    its decision in detail; rather “all that is required is that the enumerated factors
    are   considered   and   that   the   custody   decision   is   based   on   those
    considerations.” 
    Id.
     (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 
    63 A.3d 331
    , 336 (Pa. Super.
    2013)).
    - 15 -
    J-A07044-20
    In child custody cases, the paramount concern “is the best interests of
    the child.” 
    Id.
     (quoting C.G. v. J.H., 
    193 A.3d 891
    , 909 (Pa. 2018)). “The
    best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors
    which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral
    and spiritual well-being.” 
    Id.
     (quoting M.J.N. v. J.K., 
    169 A.3d 108
    , 112 (Pa.
    Super. 2017). The custody factors to be considered include:
    (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.
    - 16 -
    J-A07044-20
    (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, 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.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16).
    Further, Section 5327 of the Custody Act provides, “[i]n any action
    regarding the custody of the child between a parent of the child and a
    nonparent, there shall be a presumption that custody shall be awarded to the
    parent. The presumption in favor of the parent may be rebutted by clear and
    convincing evidence.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5327(b). Clear and convincing evidence
    is “evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to enable
    the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth
    - 17 -
    J-A07044-20
    of the precise facts in issue.” R.L., 209 A.3d at 396 (quoting M.J.S. v. B.B.
    v. B.B., 
    172 A.3d 651
    , 660 (Pa. Super. 2017)). Therefore, before the
    proceedings begin, “the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the
    biological parents’ side.” 
    Id.
     (quoting V.B. v. J.E.B., 
    55 A.3d 1193
    , 1199
    (Pa.Super. 2012)). Further, before making a decision to award primary
    physical custody to a nonparent, the trial court must “hear all evidence
    relevant to the child’s best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on
    behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and
    down on the third party's side.” 
    Id.
     (quoting V.B., 
    55 A.3d at 1199
    ).
    Here, the trial court stated that it applied the presumption in favor of
    awarding custody to a parent, rather than a third-party, but that there was a
    “plethora of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of
    parental custody and to establish that it is Child’s best interest to remain in
    primary physical custody of Great-Grandparents.” 1925(a) Op. at 19. The
    court explained its application of the custody factors as follows:
    I’ll now go through the custody factors concerning custody.
    The grandparents will retain legal custody. They have to be
    sure that the doctors and nurses and school know that they
    can provide information to Mom and Dad, but the legal
    decisions, the decision making is only with them.
    As far as school schedules, they can get the school schedule
    on the website. You should post when the regular well visits
    are on Family Wizard.
    You have to start posting more.
    But you have to start reading it.
    Obviously, [Great-G]randparents . . . did permit the
    frequent and continuing contact up until the point when we
    - 18 -
    J-A07044-20
    had to get the state police and the sheriffs involved to return
    the child.
    I understand it’s not Mom and Dad’s fault that these
    allegations -- false allegations keep getting filed, but you
    have to abide by the court order. And you didn’t, even
    though you received repeated directives from counsel and
    the Court that that was to be done.
    The next factor concerns the present and past abuse
    committed by either party or a member of the party’s
    household. . . .
    I’m also very concerned about the assaultive behavior of
    Mom’s mother, her aggressive behavior in the courthouse
    and elsewhere. So we will not allow any unsupervised visits
    with grandmother.
    In other words, you need to be in the child’s presence all
    the time. The child cannot be left alone with your mother.
    This behavior is unacceptable.
    Obviously, the parental duties performed by each party on
    behalf of the child, the child has been taken care of by
    [Great-G]randparents since birth. The child needs stability
    in her education and community life and continuity, of
    course, she shall remain with [Great-G]randparents. At prior
    times, we’d hoped things would’ve changed, but they
    haven’t.
    The ability of extended family. Obviously, there is extended
    family for everybody around to help. The child’s sibling
    relationship. There is a one-year-old baby in Mom’s house,
    and the child will see her sister at that time.
    The child is only seven and has been through a lot of
    trauma, so we’re not considering the factor of preference of
    the child based on the child’s maturity and judgment.
    The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other
    parent, obviously, Mom and Dad are getting along as well
    as they can be. And I don’t see any efforts of the Mom or
    Dad to keep the child from each other, nor do I see [Great-
    G]randparents trying to turn the child against the things
    Mom and Dad have done. So that’s not an issue.
    - 19 -
    J-A07044-20
    Which party is more likely to maintain a consistent,
    nurturing relationship adequate for the child’s emotional
    needs. . . .
    Mother, I think, would like to maintain a home adequate for
    the child’s needs. But at the current time, this certainly
    leans 99 percent in favor of the [Great-G]randparents. I
    would hope that things continue to get—continue to do well
    for Mother. I’m glad she has been clean and sober for seven
    years. I’m glad she's had a stable employment for a couple
    of years. I’m glad she's got a nice apartment that is good
    for the child and her additional child, but because of the
    proximity of the parties, two and a half hours apart, Altoona,
    during the week going to school is going to have to be with
    [Great-G]randparents.
    All of the parties are able to make arrangements to take
    care of the child, at least [Great-G]grandparents. . . .
    Mother has – she’s got [Father’s] family and her brother.
    Her mom is certainly not available. But she does have other
    people. But clearly, the retired [Great-G]randparents have
    the most, in addition to the assistance of Aunt Tina.
    The level of conflict between the parties is high.
    The history of drug and alcohol abuse. We have a substantial
    drug history of Mother, although we are very happy and
    proud of her that she's been substance free for seven years.
    . . . [Great-]Grandparents have no history of drug or alcohol
    abuse.
    The mental and physical condition of a party or a member
    of a party’s household. . . . Obviously, [Great-G]randparents
    are totally fine.
    The other relevant factors would be the fact that the child is
    stable, has been in this school, has a wonderful situation.
    Obviously, the goal is to have parents raise their children,
    not the [Great-G]randparents. And we had hoped that the
    last time, but things have fallen apart.
    I know Mom can’t control her mother, but after four
    unfounded, unbelievable allegations of sexual abuse when
    people aren't even around to do it -- like, they’re in prison
    or in Tennessee -- you have to understand creates trauma
    - 20 -
    J-A07044-20
    for the child. And the behavior of your mother is just simply
    unacceptable.
    The swearing has to stop. Kids repeat things, and it just
    looks bad for you when they come back and start swearing
    and carrying on like that. It’s just bad for the child. As it is,
    the child is dealing with a lot of anxiety.
    I will say that once Mom gets into counseling, I think it will
    be very important for her counselor and the child’s counselor
    to communicate to see if they can come up with some things
    that might be helpful to fix things. . . . And maybe they can
    fix what they can fix there.
    ...
    And hopefully, they will attend the parent/teacher
    conferences, and hopefully they’ll attend the well visits, and
    hopefully they’ll start participating as best as they can in
    their child’s life a little better and maybe in another year or
    two or three things will continue to improve.
    Many people are very physically and mentally vital well into
    their 90s. My guess is you will too, hopefully. Nevertheless
    we need some more heavy lifting from the parents when we
    get this worked out a little better. But we’re very happy this
    Mom is doing so much better. But what just happened in
    August just sort of blew everything up.
    N.T., 9/27/19, at 116-122.
    The trial court concluded that granting primary custody to Mother
    “would place Child in an environment that would be detrimental to Child’s
    overall well-being in a multitude of ways,” 1925(a) Op. at 19. It reasoned:
    Mother has a substantial history of drug and alcohol abuse,
    although she has commendably been substance free for
    seven years. Unfortunately, living with Mother would likely
    expose Child to a substantial amount of contact with
    Mother’s Mom (Child’s maternal grandmother), who has
    shown a pattern of extremely volatile and unacceptable
    behavior, ranging from significant vindictive altercations
    with Great-Grandparents to the repeated concoction of
    spurious sexual assault allegations against Great-
    - 21 -
    J-A07044-20
    Grandparents and other members of their family. Moreover,
    Mother, like Father, has contemptuously ignored various
    provisions of this Court’s previous custody Order of January
    2017, including a failure to communicate with Great-
    Grandparents via Our Family Wizard, a failure to
    communicate with Great-Grandparents regarding the
    progress of her drug rehabilitation, a failure to complete a
    12-week parenting class, a failure to enroll in counseling for
    anger issues. Last, but not least, Mother failed to return
    Child to [Great-Grandparents] for a scheduled custody
    exchange,     ultimately    necessitating   the    substantial
    involvement of law-enforcement to assist in enforcing my
    Order to return the Child to Great-Grandparents.
    Id. at 19-20.
    The court also concluded Child was thriving in Great-Grandparents’ care,
    reasoning:
    Child has been well nurtured by her Great-Grandparents
    since she was born and has been thriving in their custody.
    Great-Grandparents are retired and in good health and have
    devoted themselves to caring for Child’s emotional,
    physical, and academic needs. Great -Grandparents provide
    Child with a safe, stable home environment, they expose
    her to various recreational activities, and they tend to all of
    her medical needs. Moreover, they are thoroughly involved
    in Child’s schooling, and Child is thriving academically and
    socially. Great-Grandparents ensure that her schoolwork is
    always completed and that she gets assistance with any
    areas in which she may be struggling. Child is very young
    and has become accustomed to the stable educational
    situation and community in which she has been living. It
    would be strongly inadvisable to remove Child from this
    stability which has helped her thrive to this point, especially
    when she would be removed to an environment in which she
    would likely be surrounded by more volatility and individuals
    whose behavior and irresponsibility would present a
    substantial threat to Child’s emotional, academic, and
    physical well-being.
    Id. at 20.
    - 22 -
    J-A07044-20
    We conclude that the record supports trial court’s factual findings and
    credibility determinations and that the court did not abuse its discretion in
    issuing its custody order. The court applied the presumption in favor of parents
    but concluded that the Great-Grandparents had presented clear and
    convincing evidence that it was in Child’s best interest to remain in Great-
    Grandparents’ primary custody. We cannot conclude this was an abuse of
    discretion. Child has resided with Great-Grandparents since birth and is doing
    well in their care. Mother has made great strides but has not complied with
    the court order and has not made an effort to be involved in Child’s school
    and health decisions.
    Case remanded to remove provision requiring payment of counsel fees
    prior to reinstating Mother’s right to exercise custody. Order affirmed in all
    other respects. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 5/7/2020
    - 23 -