J.M. v. M.M. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-S76015-18
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    J.M.,                                               IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
    OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    M.M.,
    Appellee                    No. 914 WDA 2018
    Appeal from the Order Dated May 25, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
    Family Court at No(s): FD-15-005302-001
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2019
    J.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the custody order dated May 25, 2018,
    that awarded M.M. (“Father”) sole legal custody of A.B. (born in April of 2005),
    J.M. (born in April of 2007), and S.M. (born in September of 2009) (collectively
    “Children”). The May 25th order also awarded Father primary physical custody
    of the Children and partial physical custody to Mother. 1          After review, we
    affirm.
    The scope and standard of review in custody matters is as follows:
    [T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences
    made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the
    reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence
    to support it. ... However, this broad scope of review does not
    vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its
    own independent determination. ... Thus, an appellate court is
    ____________________________________________
    1   Both Mother and Father filed pro se briefs with this Court.
    J-S76015-18
    empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible
    factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not
    interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in
    view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a
    gross abuse of discretion.
    R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 
    986 A.2d 1234
    , 1237 (Pa. Super. 2009)
    (quoting Bovard v. Baker, 
    775 A.2d 835
    , 838 (Pa. Super.
    2001)). Moreover,
    on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we
    defer to the findings of the trial [court] who 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.
    R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations omitted). The test
    is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s
    conclusions. Ketterer v. Seifert, 
    902 A.2d 533
    , 539 (Pa. Super.
    2006).
    A.V. v. S.T., 
    87 A.3d 818
    , 820 (Pa. Super. 2014).
    Mother raises the following six issues, some of which include numerous
    sub-issues, for our review:
    1. The [j]udge erred by awarding [Father] sole legal custody when
    the weight of the evidence under the factors of custody favored
    Mother, including but not limited to the subparts in paragraph two
    below.
    2. The [j]udge erred by awarding Father primary physical custody
    when the weight of the evidence under the factors for custody
    favored Mother, including but not limited to:
    a. by finding that Mother discourages a relationship
    between the Father and [] Children when the parties
    -2-
    J-S76015-18
    were practicing shared legal custody and [] Children
    demonstrated strong bonds and positive relationships
    with both parents;
    b.   by finding that Mother performed most of the parental
    duties but weighing this factor in favor of Father,
    anticipating that he is capable of performing the
    same;
    c.   by first finding that the factor of stability was not
    pertinent in this case except for later inappropriately
    weighing the factor against Mother for school
    absences;
    d.   by giving Father school choice authority under
    circumstances that made Woodland Hills not in the
    best interest of [] Children;
    e.   by not considering the well-reasoned preferences of
    all or any of [] Children about the physical custody
    schedule; …
    f.   by finding that Mother attempts to turn [] Children
    away from Father when there was insufficient
    evidence of the same;
    g.   by finding that, when it come[s] to the question of
    who is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,
    consistent and nurturing relationship for [] Children’s
    emotional needs, both parties fail but later weighs this
    factor in favor of Father despite acknowledging that
    Mother cares for all their needs and that Father denies
    their needs if he doesn’t have the exact same view as
    Mother[;]
    h.   by finding that Mother is the heavier source of conflict
    despite the weight of the evidence favoring a finding
    against Father and despite finding that Father does
    not compromise with health care and education
    providers and fails to provide for [] Children in those
    areas, those areas being a source of conflict.
    3. The judge erred by creating a custody Order that divests Mother
    [of] her parental role without substantive and sufficient evidence
    that such is in the best interest of [] Children, including but not
    limited to:
    a. by ordering that Mother is prohibited from bringing
    any concerns to the attention of [] Children’s school
    and being prohibited from contacting the school
    without Father’s authorization;
    -3-
    J-S76015-18
    b. by ordering that Mother is prohibited from attending
    all parent teacher conferences, open houses, and
    other regularly scheduled school meetings and
    activities unless authorized by Father and by requiring
    Mother to leave if there is an issue at one of these
    events irrespective of the circumstances;
    c. by ordering that only Father can schedule and attend
    routine and specialist medical appointments unless
    Mother is authorized by Father to attend;
    d. by ordering that Mother cannot speak to any medical
    or education providers if Mother thinks there is an
    issue unless Father authorizes the same[,] which is
    particularly egregious when the [c]ourt found that
    Mother had the leading role in [] Children’s healthcare
    and education path;
    e. by requiring Mother to pay for all activities agreed
    upon by the parties if Father merely asserts he cannot
    afford the same;
    f. by reducing Mother’s physical custody time to five
    nights every two weeks when the parties equally
    shared physical custody;
    g. by instructing Father to give reasonable good faith
    effort at consideration of Mother’s opinion when
    Father demonstrated that his choices were against []
    Children’s interest simply because Mother asserted
    the same. Additionally, this provision is too subjective
    and not enforceable or practical in application for
    Mother to have any parental role in [] Children’s lives;
    h. by limiting communication between the Mother and []
    Children during Father’s custodial time when Mother
    and [] Children enjoyed regular contact and doing so
    despite even Father not wanting communication
    limited;
    i. by sacrificing Mother’s holiday time for Father’s need
    for holiday time without real reason;
    j. by unlawfully limiting Mother’s ability to contact []
    Children’s medical and education providers solely for
    the purpose of obtaining medical records;
    k. by failing to recognize and account for the close and
    bonded relationship of [] Children to their Mother.
    4. The [j]udge erroneously premised her Order upon “testimony
    from all custody related motions” because there is no “testimony”
    provided in motions court as such is not a fact[-]finding
    -4-
    J-S76015-18
    proceeding unless the parties were sworn in and proper procedure
    was followed.
    5. The [j]udge erroneously failed to set forth what specific details
    of the “testimony from all custody related motions” she relied
    upon when rendering her decision.
    6. The [j]udge committed errors through various evidentiary
    rulings that cannot be specifically identified at the time this
    statement is filed due to [] Children’s Fast Track requirement that
    the statement be filed with the Notice of Appeal.
    Mother’s brief at 8-12.2
    Here, in its opinion, the trial court set forth an extensive, factual and
    procedural history of this case and included information relating to the
    testimony of witnesses presented at trial. In addition, the trial court discussed
    and applied the custody factors contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. The court
    ____________________________________________
    2  Mother’s Statement of the Questions Involved does not comply with
    Pa.R.A.P. 2116 in that the issues are not concisely expressed without
    unnecessary detail. Mother also overlooks the explanation contained in Rule
    2116 that provides that the statement “will be deemed to include every
    subsidiary question fairly comprised therein.” Moreover, the argument section
    of Mother’s brief does not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which states:
    The argument shall 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 citations of
    authorities as are deemed pertinent.
    Mother has neither divided the fifty-page argument section of her brief to
    match the list of questions she raises, nor has she included any citations to
    authorities to support her arguments. The only citations included in her brief
    are located in her statement of the scope/standard of review. In reviewing
    Mother’s appeal, we have overlooked these omissions/errors and will not
    quash this appeal, although it is within our power to do so. See First Union
    Mortgage Corp. v. Frempong, 
    744 A.2d 327
    , 333 (Pa. Super. 1999).
    Rather, due to the certified record and the trial court’s comprehensive opinion,
    we conclude that the issues are reviewable.
    -5-
    J-S76015-18
    also explained its reasons for the March 25, 2018 order and addressed the
    issues Mother raised in her concise statement of errors complained of on
    appeal.
    It is apparent that Mother’s arguments are essentially requesting that
    this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence. However, our standard of
    review requires that we “accept findings of the trial court that are supported
    by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making
    independent factual determinations.” C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 
    45 A.3d 441
    , 443
    (Pa. Super. 2012). Rather, 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 finds of the trial court.” E.D. v. M.P., 
    33 A.3d 73
    , 76 (Pa. Super.
    2011).
    We have reviewed the certified record, Mother’s brief, the applicable
    law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable
    Eleanor L. Bush of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated
    September 14, 2018.      We conclude that Judge Bush’s extensive opinion
    properly disposes of the issues presented by Mother in this appeal.
    Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own and affirm the
    custody order on that basis.
    Order affirmed.
    -6-
    J-S76015-18
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 2/22/2019
    -7-
    15
    J, AM
    Circulated 02/13/2019 07:53
    IN THE COURT OF COMiv!ON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
    PE1'iNSYLVANiA
    FAMILY DIVISION
    J.M.,                                                 CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK
    Appellant,                            FD 15-005302-001
    v.                                           914 WDA2018
    M.M.,
    OPINION
    Appellee.
    OPINION
    ---- · ·-�-----·-Bush,J. ________:             ,                      .
    ---------septemhe1·14;201&-·-------
    A.M., S.M., and J.M., (collectively, the "Children") are the children of J.M.
    ("Mother") and M.M. ("Father"). Father filed a custody complaint on January 6, .
    2016, and Mother filed a counterclaim on March 9, 2016 and an amended
    counterclaim on March 8, 2017. The Court conducted a hearing in the matter on
    April 4, 2018, April 13, 2018, April 23, 2018, and May 15, 2018. During the
    hearing, the Court heard testimony from the following witnesses: (1) Father's
    employee and close friend; (2) the superintendent of the Children's school district;
    (3) S.M.'s baseball coach; (4) S.M.'s and J.M.'s soccer coach; (5) Dr. Douglas
    DeIJa Toffalo, Ph.D.; (6) Father; (7) Dr. Manikum Moodley; (8) the Children's
    former school counselor; (9) J.M.'s baseball coach; (10) J.M.'s kindergarten
    1�0               1
    teacher; (11) an education specialist with the County Department of Human
    Services; (12) maternal aunt; (13) paternal aunt; (14) Mother; and (15) the practice
    manager of the Children's pediatrician's office. The Court also interviewed all
    three of the Children. The Court admitted 173 of Father's exhibits, 51 of Mother's
    exhibits, and Court Exhibits 1 and 2 into the record.
    The parties completed all testimony on May 15, 2018. On May 17, 2018,
    with both parties present, the Court announced its decision and discussed its
    findings related to the 16 custody factors that the court must consider pursuant to
    the Domestic Relations Code. 1 The Court awarded primary physical custody of
    t �C�hildren to Father arid p_ar.tia.Lp_hy_si.c.aLc.u_s.to.dyJo_Mo.ther._The_Co.urtawarded.---··----
    ________ ------�h_e
    sole legal custody to Father. The Court subsequently issued its final order on May
    25, 2018. The order was entered on the docket on May 29, 2018. On June 22,
    2018, Mother timely filed her Notice of Appeal and Concise Statement of Matters
    Complained of on Appeal ("Concise Statement"). Mother's Concise Statement lists
    six comprehensive errors, some with as many as eleven sub-errors, and
    consequently will not be re-stated here.
    II.       Factual Background
    Tile following background summarizes key facts established during the
    course of the proceedings:
    1
    Tr. 7-24 (May 17, 2018).
    2
    the parties are the parents of three minor children. At the conclusion of the
    hearing, the Children we.re ages 13, 11, and 8. Prior to the parties' separation in
    early 2016, the parties and the Children lived together as an intact family. While
    the parties were together, Father worked to support the family financially and
    Mother stayed home to care for the Children. Mother was primarily responsible for
    the Children's educational and medical needs. Following the parties' separation,
    Father sought a more active role in the Children's education, health care, and
    extracurricular activities. Mother has rebuffed Father's parenting attempts at every
    tum and has actively tried to exclude him from participating in decisions regarding
    ________Jhe Children's lives.                 -·---·----------�-----------------�--···_________ _             �
    Mother has been completely unwilling to accept Father's role as a parent
    when dealing with educational issues. The Children all previously attended
    Shadyside Academy, but were unable to remain enrolled for financial reasons.
    Both parties live in the Woodland Hills School District, so Father enrolled the
    Children there when it became clear private school was no longer an option. The
    Children were set to begin school at Woodland Hills in the 2016-2017 school year.
    Mother refused to take the Children to schoof and Father was forced to file an
    2 When Father asked Mother if she would be taking the Children to school at the beginning of the
    school year, Mother responded: "My children will never go to [Woodland Hills]. Stop harassing
    me and stop torturing the children. You are a soulless scumbag." See Father's Exhibit 35.
    3
    Emergency Motion to resolve the matter.3 Following the Children's transition to
    the new school, Mother's communications with Father and the school sought to
    diminish Father's parental role even further.4 Mother's behavior became
    particularly egregious when she unilaterally arranged to have two of the Children
    moved up a grade level without including Father in the discussions or decision.5
    Furthermore, on the final day of the custody hearing, Mother revealed that while
    the litigation was proceeding, she submitted applications for two of the Children to
    attend a different school without informing Father. 6 Father was not aware of the
    Children's application until Mother sought to admit an exhibit documenting their
    acceptance. 7
    Mother has similarly been unwilling to accept Father's parental role when
    informing Father bf the Children's medical appointments until after they occurred,
    or on such short notice that Father was unable to make arrangements to attend. 8
    3 See
    September 2, 2016 Order of Court. School attendance during Mother's custody time has
    remained an issue.
    4 See
    e.g., Father's Exhibit 39 (In response to Father sharing with Mother a benign
    communication from S.M.'s teacher, Mother responds "Why are you having conversations with
    teachers that don't involve me. I have always been the main point person for all school issues!
    And 1'11 continue to be the main point person."); Father's Exhibit 55 (Mother criticizing Father's
    parenting in an email to the Children's principal, superintendent, and other educator); Father's
    Exhibit 76 (Mother again criticizing Father in an email to a teacher, principal, and others).
    5 Tr. 272-274
    (April 4, 2018).
    6
    Tr. 68- 70 (May 15, 2018).
    1 See Mother's Exhibit V.
    8 See
    e.g., Tr. 33-40 {April 13, 2018), Father's Exhibits 94-98.
    4
    When Father would attend the Children's appointments, Mother would swear at
    Father in front of the health professionals and others in the office.9
    Mother's efforts to exclude Father from the Children's lives have created
    conflict with the Children's educators, physicians, and coaches. The school district
    deemed it necessary to implement a special communication policy for the family
    because the Children's teachers felt intimidated and did not wish to have any direct
    °
    communication with Mother.1 Following an incident at the orthodontist where
    Mother screamed at Father for asking the orthodontist questions about the
    proposed treatment plan, the orthodontist's office sent Mother an email informing
    ---�---· --�·. her that her excessive use oLprofanity_was_unacceptable..and-that..if-she-could-not-----------·-
    control her language in the presence of minors, the family would need to find a
    different orthodontist.11 On the final day of the custody hearing, the parties
    received a message from the Children's pediatrician threatening to dismiss the
    family from the practice, specifically citing correspondence involving "a ·
    considerable amount of chicanery ... as well as incredible amounts of profanity
    and threatening Ianguage."12 One of the Children's coaches testified to Mother's
    9 See Father's Exhibits 120-122, 125.
    1
    °Tr. 74 (April 4, 2018).
    11
    See Tr. 68-69 (April 13, 2018); Mother's Exhibit K-6.
    12
    Mother's Exhibit X.
    behavior at sporting events and said it would be a reason he would consider not
    picking the Child for future teams.13
    Conversely, the evidence showed that Father has ceaselessly attempted to
    co-parent with Mother. Father attempted to discuss educational, athletic, and
    extracurricular matters with Mother. Unlike Mother, who could not think of a
    single time she compromised with Father, Father was able to name numerous areas
    where he listened to Mother's opinion and chose to support her viewpoint.14
    It was against this background that the Court evaluated each party's request
    for primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the Children. .
    ___________ .    UI. .Standard.of.Revlew            �-                   ·�--------- ----�-·-----· -�--------���-----�-
    When a trial court orders a form of custody, the best interests of the children
    are paramount. To determine the children's best interests, the trial court must
    consider the sixteen factors enumerated in 23 Pa. C.S. § 5328(a).
    Then, when reviewing the trial court's custody decision, the Superior Court
    applies the fo11owing standard of review:
    In reviewing a custody order, ... [w]e 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.
    13   Tr. 114-115 (April 4, 2018).
    14
    Tr. 140-142 (May 15, 2018).
    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.15
    IV.    Discussion
    A. The 'record supports the Court's award of sole legal and primary
    physical custody to Father.
    As required by the Domestic Relations Code, the Court reached its
    determination regarding the Children's best interests by considering each of the 16
    custody factors delineated in 23 Pa. C.S. § 5328(a). Mother raises so many issues
    on appeal that they amount to an overall assertion that the Court's findings and
    concJusions were not supported by the evidence. Therefore, before addressing
    separate, specific asserted errors, the Court will begin by summarizing and
    ---·----··------·---·---·-----discussirrg·itsfindings-regarding-e·ach-orth-�listl:fdffactors-.------···-·-�--··---·---··
    The Court weighed six of the custody factors in Father's favor and weighed
    only one of the custody factors in Mother's favor. The Court found alJ the
    remaining factors either not applicable, neutral between the parties, or slightly in
    Father's favor, but not significantly so. The Court did not find this a close case.
    The Court found the evidence driving the Court's decision to be overwhelming in
    its extent. The Court summarizes its analysis here, but does not attempt to identify
    ts V.B. v. J.E.B., 
    55 A.3d 1193
    , 1197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
    7
    all of the facts of record that support its decision. The transcript of the hearing and
    admitted exhibits include additional support for the Court's findings.
    The Court weighed Factor 1 in Father's favor. At the time of the hearing,
    Parents were equally sharing physical custody of the Children. Although the Court
    recognized that Mother does not prevent the Children from spending time in
    Father's physical custody, she actively discourages their relationship with Father
    by refusing to accept his role as a parent. Testimony and exhibits from multiple
    sources support this conclusion.
    For example, in Mother's testimony, she minimized Father's role as a parent
    and instead referred to him as "a great playmate." When communicating with the
    Children's school, Mother referred to Father as the Children's "frat brother" on
    ________ ..   --- ·- ----·---m-lu �iple
    t   occasions.r6 Mother denigrated Father in front of the Children and the .
    Children's pediatrician at routine office visits." Furthermore, Father presented
    evidence that Mother would condition Father's phone contact with the Children
    upon him providing her with money .18
    16
    See Father's Exhibit 55 and Father's Exhibit 76.
    17 See  Father's Exhibit 120 (noting at the visit, "Mom accusing Dad of trying to piss her off by
    'dressing like a f**�ng slob"' and "Mom threatening to call the police without any provocation
    and said she 'would like to 302 [Father's] aH").
    18
    See Father's Exhibits 29, 159; For additional examples of Mother's behavior, See also,
    Father's Exhibits 76, 108, 154; Tr. 68 (May 15, 2018) (AM. describing Mother's negative
    statements about Father).
    8
    I
    The Court found Factors 2 and 2.1 not applicable. Mother does not challenge
    these findings.
    The Court weighed Factor 3 in Mother's favor. It was undisputed that
    historically, Mother took the lead in fulfilling the full range of parental duties on
    behalf of the Children, including health care, educational decisions, and addressing
    the Children's respective special needs. The Court did observe that Father is both
    capable of performing these duties and has made many efforts to participate in
    fulfilling these duties since Parents separated, 19 but that observation does not
    diminish the Court's having weighed the factor in Mother's favor.
    ------� _ .          _   The J:;ourt weigheclEacioL4in-Eather�s-favor.-As..the-Court-explained-on----- - - -- ----
    the record, because Parents reside near each other and were sharing custody
    equally at the time of the hearing, the Children were able to maintain significant
    continuity and stability in a shared custody arrangement. However, Mother
    adamantly opposed the Children's enrollment in the Woodland Hills School
    District and did not ensure their consistent attendance. Mother's failures to send
    the Children to school became less frequent in the 2017-18 school year, but the
    record reflected continued instances of Mother removing the Children from school
    or not sending them on days they should have attended. As the Court stated to the
    19
    In addition, the Court points out that the parties have been exercising shared custody since
    separation. Thus, Father has been responsible for the Children's daily needs 50% of the time.
    Parents, in order for children to have continuity in their education, they must
    actually be attending school. The evidence established that Father is better able to
    ensure the Children's attendance, and the Court consequently weighed Factor 4 in
    Father's favor."
    The Court viewed Factor 5 as neutral between the parties. Both parents have
    extended family. Nothing about the Court's custody decision threatens or
    jeopardizes the Children's relationships with extended family, as they will continue
    to have opportunities to see their relatives.
    The Court viewed Factor 6 as neutral. The Court did not establish different
    ----------custody-schedules-f�r-separatB-Ghildren.-T-he-three-s-iblings·-will-continue-to-be---------· -----
    raised together.
    The Court did not weigh Factor 7 in either Parent's favor. The Court
    acknowledged the Children's stated preference to maintain the existing physical
    custody schedule, but concluded that some of their other preferences could not be
    achieved under the existing schedule. For example, A.M., the oldest child, clearly
    expressed the preference for the conflict between her parents to end and
    demonstrated the insight to explain that her parents needed rules to follow to
    20
    See Tr. 289-305 (April 4, 2018) (Father's testimony), Tr. 241-248 (April 23, 2018) (Mother's
    testimony), Father's Exhibits 52, 57, 59, 61, 65 (official school attendance records); Mother's
    Exhibit P (self-created summary that the Court finds Jess reliable than official record).
    10
    reduce the conflict.21 J.M. very much enjoys going with Father to assist Father in
    his work as a real estate appraiser, an activity Mother believes inappropriate for
    J.M.22 A.M. enjoys attending her brothers' sports practices and games, again
    something to which Mother objects.23 J.M. expressed as his strongest wish that he
    get to all his basebalJ games, and asked if the Court could ensure that happens.24
    Again, Mother objects to the boys' current levels of participation in baseball and
    soccer. The Court found all of these preferences reasonable, given the Children's
    ages, but concluded that awarding primary physical custody to Father would better
    foster fulfillment of those preferences.25
    The Court weighed Factor 8 in Father's favor. The Court heard credible
    testimony that Mother talks negatively about Father in front of the Children and
    .    uses mat-- re -ai _l_it_e-ms. sh;-ca--   f -d-butF-a
    a ��
    n f-      ,      t _c-annot,_i
    -h_e  r          n ·;;�e-m
    __a     tt �-t-ot turn the
    Children against Father. For example, on one occasion, Mother arrived at Father's
    house during his custody time to show the Children all of the new clothes and
    shoes she had purchased for them. Mother then informed the Children they could
    21
    Tr. 72 (May 15, 2018).
    22   Tr. 33 (May 15, 2018).
    23
    Tr. 75 (May 15, 2018).
    24
    Tr. 39 (May 15, 2018).
    25
    As the Court commented when stating the findings on the record, when
    considering the Children's preferences, the Court placed the greatest weight on
    A.M.'s insight regarding the conflict between Parents and the need for it to end.
    See Tr. 13-14 (May 17, 2018).
    11
    not have their new items while they were at the Father's house, causing the
    Children to cry.26
    The Court weighed Factor 9 in Father's favor, although the Court noted that
    both Parents need to make changes in their behavior to ensure that the Children's
    emotional needs are met. The record supports that Father shows the capacity to
    reflect on his own behavior, to recognize its impact on the Children, and to alter his
    behavior accordingly. For example, Father acknowledged that he both needed and
    immediately sought his therapist's assistance in addressing the way he interacted
    with J.M. after Father's discovery that J.M. was aware of the plans to advance him
    a grade and participated in the failure to disclose that to Father.27
    �-----------   .. � ------�-�- -   ---��----------�- -                 ----·---------�---�-�-----�----�·-·
    26Tr. 248-251 (April 4, 2018); See also Tr. 57-59 (April 13, 2018) (Mother insists
    on taking A.M. to orthodontist to get braces off when she knows office will refuse
    because Father's payments are not yet current), Father's Exhibit 111; Tr. 123-124
    (April 13, 2018) (Mother makes unnecessary police report when Children are not
    answering phone because they are sledding with Father), Father's Exhibit 150; Tr.
    137-138 (April 13, 2018) (Negative impact on Children of Mother requiring Father
    to pick them up from pool), Father's Exhibits 161·163.
    27    Tr. 274-275 (April 4, 2018), Father's Exhibit 42.
    12
    In contrast, Mother has shown no similar capacity. One striking example of
    Mother's inability to attend to the Children's emotional needs arose during the
    testimony of Dr. Moodley, the specialist who treats A.M. for her Postural
    Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS). At Mother's request, Dr. Moodley
    read into the record the notes from a consulting psychologist associated with Dr.
    Moodley. These notes characterized the "family dynamics related to parents'
    divorce" as "negatively impacting [A.M. 's] health." The notes further identified
    A.M.'s "tenuous relationship with her mother" as "negatively impacting" her
    adherence to needed daily medication, and specified that "mother's approach of
    -----------yelling-creates-a-resistanee-to-taldng-medieation-!?8-A-;M:-·herself;-describing-the·--..--------·---
    same appointment with the psychologist, reported that Mother devoted the majority
    of the appointment to speaking about her own issues with the divorce and with
    Father, until the psychologist intervened to request time with A.M. alone.29
    The Court weighed Factor 10 in Father's favor. Unfortunately, the record
    contains many examples of Mother's inability to maintain civil interactions with
    health care professionals, school professionals and in other settings that are
    28
    Tr. 92, 100-101, 103-104 (April 13,.2018).
    29
    Tr. 84 (May 15, 2018). See also, Tr. 68 (May 15, 2018) (A.M. reports resorting to "fake
    crying" to get Mother to stop engaging in yelJing and screaming arguments with AM.).
    13
    important components of the Children's lives." As the Court explained on the
    record, a parent, such as Mother, who cannot maintain basic civil conduct with the
    various systems· that interact with her children cannot possibly attend adequately to
    their daily needs.
    Father, on the other hand, appears more capable of conducting himself
    rationally and more capable of setting aside anger at Mother's conduct to focus on
    the Children's needs. For example, for several months toward the end of the 2015-
    16 school year and prior to the start of the 2017-18 school year, Mother unilaterally
    advocated and then arranged for J.M. and S.M. to be moved up a grade level.
    -�""·-----------Motherhroughtiirthe--assistance·-ora-.n�ducationaJ··sp-edaltsreinployeci-bytli.e···-�---····-···------
    Allegheny County Department of Human Services to assist her. When Father first
    became aware of Mother's efforts· and the specialist's involvement, he was angry.
    30 See, e.g., Tr. 72-74 (April 4, 2018) (School district communication policy routing Mother's
    communications through administrators due to teachers feeling intimidated); Tr. 111-115 (April
    4, 2018) (Mother's communication with T-ball coach and potential negative impact on S.M.);
    Father's Exhibit 121 (Pediatrician office note referring to Mother's "erratic" behavior and use of
    "obscenities"); Compare Father's Exhibits 79, 80 (showing each Parent's respective response to
    same email from J.M.'s teacher).
    14
    However, rather than entirely rejecting their advice, he accepted input from the
    specialist who interacted with him and found the assistance beneficial enough that
    he would re-institute their services now.31
    · Factor 11 was not applicable, Parents reside in close proximity.
    The Court weighed Factor 12 as neutral between the parties. Each parent is
    quite available to attend to child care duties. Mother does not work, and Father
    works from a home office. Each parent is capable of making appropriate child care
    arrangements when necessary.
    The Court weighed Factor 13 in Father's favor. The evidence on this factor,
    �--.   -more-tb�n..any-o thery.drove-the-Court-to-award -soleIegal-eustod y-to-Fathcr-Thc ... ··-······------- ----
    record demonstrates an extremely high level of conflict between Mother and
    Father. The evidence also compelled the Court to conclude that Mother's conduct
    and adamant unwillingness to accept Father's exercise of his parental role
    constitutes the source of much of the conflict. The record is replete with examples
    of Mother causing unwarranted conflict with Father. The evidence shows that
    31
    See generally, Tr. 21-23, 180-181, 186, 280, 287-289 (April 13, 2018), Tr. 141 (May 15,
    2018).
    15
    Circulated 02/13/2019 07:53 AM
    Mother is too wrapped up in her disdain for Father to make decisions that are in the
    best interests of the Children.32
    Further, Father has demonstrated at least some ability to cooperate with
    Mother and consider her views. In contrast, the record is devoid of any examples
    of Mother agreeing with or compromising with Father, and Mother herse1f could
    not think of a single example where she considered Father's view on an issue and
    changed her viewpoint in response.33
    The Court did not consider evidence related to Factor 14 significant enough
    to affect the Court's conclusions. The Court noted concerns raised in the custody
    evaluator's report regarding Mother's alcohol consumption, but did not reach any
    conclusions about this concern.
    Tne-Courfcfia·not consider evidence related to Factor 15 significant enough
    to affect the Court's conclusions. Mother has experienced some significant
    physical health conditions in the past, but these do not pose major issues now. The
    Court noted its agreement with the custody evaluator's observation that Mother
    32 See
    e.g., Father's Exhibit 27 (Father attempts to discuss affordable health care options with
    Mother and Mother responds "F*** you!"); See also, Father's Exhibit 28 (Father attempts to
    discuss the Children's school and Mother responds ''You are a soulless scumbag."); Father's
    Exhibit 32 (Father did not agree with Mother unilaterally changing the custody order and Mother
    responded "here is the deal, you are going to change your f***ing attitude or I'm gonna make
    your life a living bell."); Father's Exhibit 94 (Father reaches out to co-parentwhen it comes to
    · medical appointments and Mother responds "Your (sic) liar. You say the most bizarre things
    regarding the kids heath (sic). Bizarre· about everything ... your (sic) not mentally right. Please
    seek help and work [o ]n yourself!").
    33
    Tr. 108 (May 15, 2018).
    16
    lacks insight. However, the Court's observations regarding this factor did not drive
    the Court's conclusions regarding the Children's best interests.
    The Court found Factor 16 not applicable.
    Considering .all the factors, the Court found it necessary to award sole legal
    custody to Father. The Court further concluded that awarding Father primary
    physical custody by altering the school year custody schedule would best serve the
    Children's needs. Among other things, the Court concluded that school attendance
    issues and some frequent day-to-day conflicts regarding the Children's attendance
    at sports practices and games would be either eliminated or at least best addressed
    -�----�-- ------by-awarding-primary-·physical-eustody-to-Father;--'Fhe-eourrfurtherconduded-that----�---
    these issues were most pressing during the school year. Consequently, the Court
    maintained the equally shared physical custody schedule for the summer.
    B. Mother has failed to identify any abuse of discretion or legal error
    that warrants     reversal.
    1. Mother's specific complaints regarding the Court's findings
    do not merit relief.
    Mother's first error alleges that the Court erred in awarding Father
    sole legal custody of the Children. Mother's second error alleges that the
    Court erred in awarding Father primary physical custody of the Children.
    The Court refers to its discussion above regarding the record support for its
    findings, weighing of the evidence, and ultimate conclusions. Where Mother
    17
    has identified specific sub-errors, the Court will now provide additional
    discussion, if needed.
    In her first sub-error, Mother asserts that the Court erred in finding
    that Mother discourages a relationship between Father and the Children. The
    Court interprets this as a challenge to the Court weighing Factor 1 in
    Father's favor and does not believe further discussion of this factor is
    necessary.
    In her second sub-error, Mother asserts that the Court erred in "finding that
    Mother performed most of the parental duties but weighing this factor in favor of··--··-·--·--
    --------- ·--·-·-·--------------·-- -�- -                                                                    .
    Father, anticipating that he is capable of performing the same." The Court
    interprets this to challenge the Court's weighing of Factor 3. As discussed above,
    the Court clearly stated that it weighed this factor in favor of Mother, not Father.34
    Therefore, Mother's assertion that the Court erred in this respect is without merit.
    In her third sub-error, Mother claims the Court erred "by first finding that
    the factor of stability was not pertinent in this case except for later inappropriately
    weighing the factor against Mother for school absences." The Court interprets this
    as a challenge to its analysis    of Factor 4. At no point did the Court find this factor
    34
    Tr. 10 (May 17, 2018).
    18
    to be "not pertinent."35 The Court did, however, weigh this factor in favor of
    Father, for the reasons discussed above.
    In her fourth sub-error, Mother alleges the Court erred "by giving Father
    school choice authority under circumstances that made Woodland Hills not in the
    best interest of the Children." The Court interprets this as a challenge to its award
    of sole legal custody to Father, as Father's authority necessarily includes all
    educational decisions, including choice of schools. The Court's discussion above
    explains its decision to award sole legal custody to Father. Regarding school
    choice in particular, the Court believes Mother so invested in her hatred of the
    Woodland Hills School District that she is incapable of recognizing ways in which
    the Children's current schools are suited to their needs and interests."
    ----�---··--------���----�- ...--------�--�--------------·------------............... ----.. . . ._,. _                  ....
    _...,......-..--      -     .   -     .   .   ---··-·
    In her fifth sub-error, Mother alleges the Court erred by not considering the
    well-reasoned preference of the Children regarding the physical custody schedule.
    The Court's discussion above explains the Court's consideration of the Children's
    preferences. The Court simply adds here that other factors outweighed the
    Children's preference regarding the physical custody schedule.
    35
    See Tr. 10-11 (May 17, 2018).
    36
    See, e.g., Tr. 96-97 (April 4, 2018) (School district observation that J.M. arid S.M. thriving and
    adjusted at school unless Mother is present); Tr. 149-151 (April 13, 2018) (Father's observations
    of S.M. 's enthusiasm about school); Tr. 56-61 (May 15, 2018) (A.M. describing activities and
    her love of her school).
    19
    In her sixth sub-error, Mother alleges the Court erred in finding Mother
    attempts to tum the Children against Father. The Court's discussion above
    regarding Factor 8 addresses this issue.
    In her seventh sub-error, Mother alleges the Court erred in finding Father is
    more likely to· maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with
    the Children adequate to the Children's emotional needs. The Court's discussion
    above regarding Factor 9 addresses this issue.
    In her final sub-error, Mother alleges the Court erred in finding that Mother
    is the "heavier source of conflict." The Court interprets this as a challenge to the
    ---------···---Gourt.!s-weighing·of-·Factor-1-3:-T-he-eourtnotes-thartne·1evel-ofconll1cfbetween ---------
    the parties in this matter is unusually high. The parties lack the ability to agree on
    both basic and major decisions concerning the Children. Of all the custody factors,
    the conflict between the parties and their inability to cooperate on the most basic
    level weighed most strongly in Father's favor and in the Court's award of sole
    legal and primary physical custody to him.
    2. The Court's Order appropriately implements the Court's
    � conclusion that Father shall have primary physical and sole
    legal custody.
    Mother's third error takes issue with numerous provisions of the May 25,
    2018 Final Order of Court. The Court interprets Mother's sub-errors 3(a), 3(b),
    3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(g), and 3(j) to dispute the Court's decision to award. Father sole
    20
    legal custody. The Court interprets Mother's sub-errors 3(t), 3(h), 3(i), and 3(k) to
    challenge the Court's decision to award Father primary physical custody.
    Trial courts must necessarily exercise considerable discretion in drafting the
    details of custody orders. Given the support on the record for the Court's award of
    sole Jegal and primary physical custody to Father, the Court believes the specific
    details in the order fell within the Court's discretion to fashion. Consequently, the
    Court will not further address 3(a), 3(c), 3(d), or 3(j), as the Court has already
    explained its legal custody analysis on the record with the parties present and in the
    discussion above. The Court will not further address 3(t), 3(h), and 3(k), as the
    -------·- - ---Gourt-has-already-explained-its-physical-custody-anal ysts.:on-the--re-cord-with-tlfe--··----·--
    parties present and in the discussion above. The Court will, however, address 3(b),
    3(e), 3(g) and 3(i) because Mother's complaints lead the Court to believe she is
    misinterpreting the Order.
    Regarding sub-error 3(b), Mother alleges the Court erred in ordering that she
    should be prohibited from attending school events, such as parent-teacher
    conferences, unless authorized by Father. The Order actually states that Mother
    may attend these events. The Order provides that Mother does, however, have to
    leave the event if a dispute should arise between herself and Father. The Court
    finds it appropriate for Father to remain at the event should this occur, as Father
    �l:)          21
    was awarded sole legal custody and is responsible for making all educational
    decisions.
    The Court also believes that Mother is misinterpreting the Order in regard to
    sub-error 3(e). During the hearing, Father credibly testified that activities Mother
    wants the Children to participate in, such as skiing and golf, are not financialJy
    feasible. Father testified that if he was awarded sole legal custody, he would permit
    the Children to participate in activities important to Mother that he could
    personally not afford as_ long as Mother was willing and able to pay for these
    activities. As Father was awarded sole legal custody, the Court specified that he
    would be unilaterally responsible for selecting the Children's extracurricular
    activities. The Court did not discuss or alter the allocation of payment
    �------�------·--· -------------�----------------�--·---__.-�----------·--·---�--------                           .   .   .   -   -�
    responsibility for activities Father selects for the Children, as this fa already
    covered in the parties' child support order. However, the Court did clarify Father's
    sole legal custody right to condition his consent for the Children's participation in
    an activity Mother proposes upon Mother agreeing to pay for the activity. This
    seems reasonable to the Court, as Father would be acting within the scope of his
    legal custody authority to simply refuse to permit the Children to participate in
    these additional activities selected by Mother. The Order does not permit Father to
    sign the Children up for anything he desires and then make Mother solely
    22
    /
    responsible for payment of these activities as Mother seems to allege in sub-error
    3(e).
    Mother's sub-error 3(g) alleges that the provision of the Court's Order
    . .                   .
    requiring Father to consider Mother's input before making any legal custody
    decisions is too subjective to enforce. Again, the Court thinks Mother simply
    misunderstands the Order or perhaps the concept of sole legal custody. When the
    . Court awarded Father sole legal custody, it conferred upon him the exclusive right
    to make all major decisions on behalf of the Children. Father could then legally
    make all of these decisions without Mother's input or consent. However, the Court
    ----------- -·--ord�rec:i-Fatlieftcnnforrifl'v1otlfer prioflo-malcing 1fiese decfs10ns far enough in -------
    advance to allow Mother time to provide her input. The Court also ordered Father
    to make a reasonable good faith effort to consider this input. The Court included
    '
    these provisions to serve as a mechanism for ensuring that Mother's opinion would
    be heard before major decisions were made, as Father has shown himself able to
    consider Mother's input. However, if the Superior Court finds this requirement too
    subjective to enforce, the Court suggests simply removing the requirement,
    Finally, in sub-error 3(i), Mother claims that the Court erred "by sacrificing
    Mother's holiday time for Father's need for holiday time without real reason." As
    all other holidays in the order rotate annually, the Court assumes Mother is
    referring to whose custody takes precedence when conflicts between Jewish and
    Christian holidays occur.
    The parties and the Court discussed holiday traditions in depth so that both
    parties' religious holidays could be accommodated. The two potential conflicts
    identified were Easter and Passover, and Hanukah and Christmas. The Court
    ordered that if Easter and Passover conflicted, Passover would take precedence and
    Mother would have custody of the Children. The Court did this because Mother
    requested Passover take precedence over Easter and Father agreed that it should.37
    The Court ordered that if Christmas and Hanukah conflict, Christmas would take
    precedence so that Father will have custody for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
    Similarly, this was ordered upon the parties' agreement that Christmas should take
    -------,. . . ---�---·.. .-       ·-----·------------------�---------
    ·
    ------�-- --�    precedence over Hanukah.. Mother testified that Father loves Christmas Eve and
    Christmas Day with the Children, and that she would "trump that over Hanukkah
    ... [ a ]bsolutely trump that over Hanukkah. "38
    For the reasons discussed on the record and throughout this opinion, the
    Superior Court should reject Mother's error 3 challenging details of the Court's
    Order and custody determination.
    3. The Court did not err in considering testimony from hearings held
    on motions presented while the full hearing was pending.
    37
    Tr. 214 (April 13, 2018).
    38
    Tr. 90 (May 15, 2018).
    24
    Mother's fourth error alleges that the Court erred in considering testimony
    from two motions hearings, asserting generally that the testimony was not sworn
    and that proper procedure was not followed. Mother is mistaken.
    The Court admitted transcripts from two motions hearings into the record.
    The first hearing occurred on November 7, 2017 in response to an emergency
    motion Mother filed regarding the Children's grade level placement in their school
    district. The Court held a full hearing on this motion, in which Mother, Father, and
    both witnesses from the school district were sworn in. The second hearing occurred
    on January 5, 2018 in response to a motion Mother filed concerning the status of
    the Children's healthinsurance, Mother and Father were again both sworn in
    I
    before the beginning of the motion hearing::_�---------------··-··--··
    ·             ·-------------------···---
    -·--�-------··----:-----                ---
    The transcript from the November 7, 2017 motion was admitted to the
    record on the first day of trial at Mother's request as Mother's Exhibit A.40 Mother
    now alJeges that the Court erred in considering her own exhibit.
    39 For
    background, while this matter originated in January 2016, ii was not assigned to the
    undersigned Judge until October 2, 2017, following two judicial recusals in September 2017.
    Mother quickJy filed numerous motions in the month of October. Recognizing the highly
    litigious nature of the case, the Court began the practice of swearing the parties in and having
    every motion argued on the record. The Court made extensive efforts lo accommodate Mother's
    numerous motions, including scheduling her motions at a different time than all other prose
    motions so that she would have adequate lime to address all of her issues.
    40 See Mother's Exhibit A; Tr. 79
    (April 4, 2018).
    25
    The transcript from the January 5, 2018 motion was admitted as the Court's
    Exhibit 2 on the third day of trial in the interest of judicial economy after Mother
    began to rehash the payment history of the Children's health insurance premiums
    going back to 2016.41 At the time of the custody hearing, both parties were acting
    prose and were also involved in ongoing litigation concerning equitable
    distribution and child support. At times during the custody hearing, both parties
    sought to offer testimony that was pertinent primarily to the pending proceedings
    on financial issues. At the time of the custody hearing, the custody matter had not
    reached a final resolution in over two years. The hearing, initially scheduled for
    two days, was halfway through a third day, and it was apparent a fourth and
    _ ________ __
    potentially fifth day would need. to be scheduled.
    ;_           .
    Instead of dev_oJingJuiadng.time----·-----·--
    -----------
    to Father's response to Mother's testimony about the health insurance, the Court
    chose to admit the transcript from the motion hearing in order to prevent repeat
    testimony on an issue that was primarily relevant to the parties' child support
    proceedings.
    As the transcripts reflect, the testimony from these hearings was taken under
    oath, and the parties were both given the opportunity to question witnesses, submit
    evidence, and argue their respective positions. Consequently, the Superior Court
    should reject Mother's fourth matter complained of on appeal. Alternatively, the
    41
    Tr. 123-129 (April 23, 2018).
    Court posits that the testimony from these two transcripts played a minimal role in
    the Court's decision and any improper consideration of the testimony could
    amount to nothing more than harmless error.
    Mother's fifth error alleges the Court erred by failing to specify the
    testimony the Court relied on from the motions hearings. The Domestic Relations
    Code requires the Court to "delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in
    · open court or in a written opinion or order.?" The Superior Court has held that
    merely listing the factors" or simply stating that the court considered the factors
    without further explanation" is insufficient under the statute. The Court does not
    interpret 'this to require the Court to detail each specific exhibit and piece of
    testimony it relied upon in reaching its _decision. For furtheLclarity. here-the Court--- - ---·-----
    --------�-----·-· --·-----------
    found the November 7, 2017 testimony illustrative of the parties' respective
    abilities to work with the school administrators and each other in order to meet the
    best interests of the Children. The January 5, 2018 transcript bore minimal
    relevance to the custody proceedings outside of demonstrating the conflict between
    the parties. Both transcripts· played a minor role in the Court's overall custody
    decision. For these reasons, the Superior Court should reject Mother's fifth matter
    complained of.
    42
    23 Pa. C.S. § 5323(d).
    43
    M.P. v. M.P., 
    4 A.3d 950
    , 955-56 (Pa. Super. 2012).
    44    C.B. v. J.B., 
    65 A.3d 946
    ," 950-51 (Pa. Super. 2013).
    · 4. Mother's remaining issue should be deemed waived for vagueness.
    Mother's sixth matter complained of alJeges that the Court "committed
    errors through various evidentiary rulings that cannot be specifically
    identified.. .. "45 The statement of this issue violates Rule of Appellate Procedure
    x
    1925(b 4)(ii), which requires the appellant's concise statement to "identify each
    ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to
    identify all pertinent issues for the judge. "46
    Pursuant to Rule 1925(b)(4)(vii), issues "not raised in accordance with the
    provisions of ... paragraph (b)(4) are waived.?" The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    has recognized that:
    _______..   _
    [t]he absence of a tria!_cqur_LQpinion-poses-a-substantfal-1mpediment" ---
    --·---------to-nre1tningfiiCana effective appellate review. RuJe 1925 is intended to
    aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which
    the parties plan to raise on appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial
    component of the appeJlate process.48
    · "When a court. has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough
    for meaningful review."? "In other words, a Concise Statement which is too vague
    45
    See Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 116.
    46
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b){4)(vi) provides an exception to this rule that
    permits general statements of errors only when the appellant cannot readily discern the basis
    for the judge's decision and prefaces the statement of matters complained of with an
    explanation as to why the errors are only in general terms. Such an explanation was not
    provided here.
    47
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
    48
    Commonwealth v. Lord, 
    119 A.2d 306
    , 308 (Pa. 1998).
    49   Commonwealth v. Dowling, 
    778 A.2d 683
    , 686 (Pa. Super 2001) (quoting Commonwealth v.
    Butler, 
    756 A.2d 55
    , 57 (Pa. Super. 2000)).
    28
    "
    to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent
    of no Concise Stat�ment at all."50 The Superior Court has held that "[e]ven if the
    trial court correctly
    .
    guesses the issues (a]ppellant
    .
    raises on appeal and writes an
    opinion pursuant to that supposition, the issue is still waived."51
    Unfortunately, with over 1000 pages of testimony contained in the transcripts,
    and over 200 admitted exhibits, the Court is unable to even muster a guess as to
    what potential evidentiary errors Mother may be complaining of and therefore
    cannot elaborate on the issue. The Court therefore suggests that this issue is waived.
    -----------�----
    ----V.-·eonclusfon-;·--:-
    For the reasons detailed above, the Superior Court should reject Mother's
    issues for review and affirm this Court's May 25, 2018 Final Order.
    By the Court:
    so Id. at 686-687.
    51
    Commonwealth v. Heggins, 
    809 A.2d 908
    , 911 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citing Commonwealth. v.
    Lemon, 
    804 A.2d 34
     (Pa. Super. 2002).
    29