J.A.Z. v. P.J.J. ( 2019 )

J-A03027-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.A.Z. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
P.J.J. :
:
Appellant : No. 1352 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered August 17, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Civil Division at No(s):
2010-GN 4413
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2019
Appellant P.J.J. (“Father”) appeals from the order denying his petition
to modify the existing child custody order regarding his daughter, E.J.
(“Child”), born in March of 2008, to Father and J.A.Z. (“Mother”). The order
continued the award of primary physical custody to Mother, partial physical
custody to Father, and denied Father’s request for shared physical custody of
Child in a 50/50 arrangement. The order also granted Mother’s request, made
at the custody hearing, for a reduction in Father’s physical custody time.1
We affirm.
____________________________________________
1 Pursuant to the custody order on appeal, Father has partial custody every
Wednesday after school until 8:00 p.m., and every other weekend from 6:00
p.m. on Thursday until Sunday night at 8:00 p.m., with a different schedule
for summer vacation and holidays. The order on appeal eliminated the Sunday
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03027-19
The parties were married, and on November 22, 2010, Mother filed a
complaint for divorce against Father, including a count seeking primary
physical custody of Child. In February of 2014, the trial court entered the final
divorce decree. Mother and Father both live in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania,
approximately four blocks apart. Father, an employee at the retailer REI, is
remarried, and he and his current wife have twin children. Mother is a
substitute teacher and freelance writer. Child is academically advanced, has
straight As, and creates videos for YouTube.2
On January 15, 2016, Father filed a petition to modify custody. Upon
the consent of the parties, on February 26, 2016, the trial court entered a
temporary order directing that the parties share legal and physical custody of
Child and that Child reside with Mother in the marital home. On April 6, 2016,
the trial court directed that the February 26, 2016 order remain in effect. On
December 9, 2016, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Father’s
petition to modify custody. Thereafter, in an order entered on December 27,
2016, the trial court directed that the parties share legal and physical custody
of Child and that Child continue to reside with Mother.
____________________________________________
overnight with Father, which had been in place under the existing
December 20, 2016 custody order, because Child preferred to spend Sunday
night at Mother’s home and leave for school on Monday morning with Mother.
2 For a more detailed presentation of the history of this matter, we direct the
reader to the trial court’s opinion in support of the order on appeal. Trial Court
Opinion, 8/27/18, at 1-7.
-2-
J-A03027-19
On January 18, 2017, Father filed a motion for reconsideration of the
December 27, 2016 order. The trial court held a hearing on the motion for
reconsideration on January 30, 2017. In an order entered on February 1,
2017, the trial court denied Father’s request for additional physical custody
during the summer months. On June 9, 2017, the trial court entered a
supplemental custody order incorporating the parties’ agreement regarding
the summer physical custody schedule.
On October 12, 2017, Father filed a petition for modification, requesting
a 50/50 physical custody arrangement. On November 16, 2017, Father filed
a request for a custody evidentiary hearing. In an order dated November 16,
2017, and entered on November 17, 2017, the trial court stated that, having
reviewed the orders entered December 27, 2016, February 1, 2017, and
June 9, 2017, it declined to modify the existing custody order pending the
custody litigation process.
The trial court held custody evidentiary hearings on March 26, 2018,
and June 18, 2018.3 During the hearings, Father continued to seek a 50/50
physical custody arrangement, and Mother sought to reduce Father’s period
of physical custody.
____________________________________________
3 At the hearing on March 26, 2018, Father testified on his own behalf. On
June 18, 2018, Child testified in camera. Also on June 18, 2018, Mother’s
counsel cross-examined Father. Father’s counsel questioned Father on re-
direct examination, and Mother testified on her own behalf.
-3-
J-A03027-19
On August 17, 2018, the trial court entered the order that awarded
shared legal and physical custody to the parties, with the schedule set forth
above. Supra, at 1 n.1. Father timely filed a notice of appeal on
September 14, 2018, along with a concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). In addition, the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Father presents the following issues for our review, which we have
renumbered for ease of disposition:
I. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by failing
to order a shared 50/50 custody schedule between the parents
and by fashioning a manifestly unreasonable custody order[,]
reducing Father’s periods of custody with the minor child, which is
not in the best inter[e]st of the child?
II. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in finding
that the child’s preference to reside with Mother was a well[-
]reasoned preference as required under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5328(a)(7)?
III. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in finding
that Mother was more able than Father to maintain a loving,
stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child
because Mother has fewer family members to share her time
with[,] making her more available to the child?
IV. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in finding
that the mother consistently urges the child to think about Father
and offers Father extra time to be with the child?
Father’s Brief at 4-5.
Father’s four issues challenging the trial court’s custody order are
interrelated. In all of his issues, Father argues that the trial court abused its
-4-
J-A03027-19
discretion or erred in refusing to award a 50/50 shared physical custody
arrangement to him.
In his first issue, Father argues that the trial court erred or abused its
discretion by failing to order a shared 50/50 custody schedule between the
parents and by fashioning a manifestly unreasonable custody order, reducing
Father’s periods of custody with the minor child, which is not in the best
interest of Child. Father’s Brief at 36-49. Father contends that it is in the
best interest of Child to have a 50/50 shared custody arrangement. Father
argues that the proximity of his residence to Mother’s house is only a few
blocks, which makes his proposed custody arrangement possible and in Child’s
best interest. Id. at 40.
In his second issue, Father argues that the trial court erred or abused
its discretion when it concluded that Child’s preferences are well-reasoned.
Father’s Brief at 15-25. Father notes that Child, although academically gifted,
is only ten years old. Father asserts that Child’s reported stress about not
attending school on time when in Father’s care is unsupported by the record.
Id. at 18-21. Father urges that Child’s relationship with her half-siblings,
whom she finds annoying, is extremely important, and should not be brushed
aside merely because Child reports that she is more comfortable distancing
herself from them. Id. at 22-25. Father argues that Child’s family should not
be limited to Mother and Father, but should include her siblings.
-5-
J-A03027-19
With regard to his third issue, Father argues that the trial court erred or
abused its discretion in finding that Mother was the parent better able to
maintain a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing relationship with Child
because Mother has fewer family members, making her more available to
Child. Father’s Brief at 25-29. Father asserts that the parties are equally able
to maintain a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing relationship with Child,
despite having differences within his home as to family members. Id. at 26.
Father claims that the differences between his work schedule and Mother’s
work schedule do not hamper his ability to provide Child with love that equals
Mother’s love of Child. Id. at 26-27.
In his final issue, Father contends that the trial court erred or abused its
discretion in finding that Mother consistently urges Child to think about Father
and offers Father extra time to be with Child. Father’s Brief at 29-36. Father
claims, instead, that the record demonstrates that Mother fails to encourage
extra time between Father and Child. Id. Father asserts that, while there are
some examples of Mother providing him some additional time with Child when
convenient for her schedule, the record establishes that Mother takes a
different approach when Father seeks additional time which would take away
from Mother’s time with Child.
Citing M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 21 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc),
Father urges that, where the record is sufficiently developed, yet the trial court
has abused its discretion, we may exercise our discretion, and substitute our
-6-
J-A03027-19
discretion for that of the trial court. Father’s Brief at 14, 49. Father, in fact,
implores this Court to exercise its discretion and enter an order providing
Mother and Father with a shared 50/50 custody arrangement, which he
asserts is in Child’s best interest.
In custody cases under the Child Custody Act, (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.
§§ 5321-5340, our standard of review is as follows:
In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type
and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings
of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of
record, as our role does not include making independent factual
determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility
and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial
judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand.
However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or
inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether
the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the
evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial
court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in
light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.
C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
We have stated:
The discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should
be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the
proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives
of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial
court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot
adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Jackson
v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
In M.A.T., we stated the following regarding an abuse of discretion
standard:
-7-
J-A03027-19
Although we are given a broad power of review, we are
constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating
the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of
judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly unreasonable
as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is abused. An
abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears from a
review of the record that there is no evidence to support the
court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence.
Id. at 18-19 (quotation and citations omitted).
Regarding the definition of an abuse of discretion, this Court has stated:
[a]n abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in
reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law,
or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either
manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will, discretion has been abused.
Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quotation
omitted). With any custody case decided under the Act, the paramount
concern is the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5328, 5338.
Section 5323 of the Act provides for the following types of custody
awards:
(a) Types of award.—After considering the factors set forth in
section 5328 (relating to factors to consider when awarding
custody), the court may award any of the following types of
custody if it is in the best interest of the child:
(1) Shared physical custody.
(2) Primary physical custody.
(3) Partial physical custody.
(4) Sole physical custody.
(5) Supervised physical custody.
-8-
J-A03027-19
(6) Shared legal custody.
(7) Sole legal custody.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(a).
Section 5338 of the Act provides that, upon petition, a trial court may
modify a custody order if it serves the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 5338. Section 5328(a) sets forth the best-interest factors that the trial court
must consider. E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 80-81, n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). Trial
courts are required to consider “[a]ll of the factors listed in section
5328(a) ... when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647,
652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in original).
Section 5328(a) of the Act provides as follows.
§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall
determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant
factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which
affect the safety of the child, including the following:
(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit
frequent and continuing contact between the child and another
party.
(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or
member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued
risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can
better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of
the child.
(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and
(2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with
protective services).
-9-
J-A03027-19
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf
of the child.
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s
education, family life and community life.
(5) The availability of extended family.
(6) The child’s sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the
child’s maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the
other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where
reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child
from harm.
(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,
consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for
the child’s emotional needs.
(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily
physical, emotional, developmental, 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.
- 10 -
J-A03027-19
(16) Any other relevant factor.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5328.
Further, we have explained:
Section 5323(d) provides that a trial court “shall delineate the
reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a written
opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Additionally, “section
5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory
assessment of the sixteen [Section 5328(a) custody] factors prior
to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.”
C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied,
70 A.3d 808 (Pa. 2013). . . .
In expressing the reasons for its decision, “there is no required
amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is
required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that
the custody decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v.
M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, [620
Pa. 710], 68 A.3d 909 (2013). A court’s explanation of reasons
for its decision, which adequately addresses the relevant factors,
complies with Section 5323(d). Id.A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822-823 (Pa. Super. 2014).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant legal authority,
the certified record before us, and the trial court’s opinion filed on September
28, 2018, in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).4 In its opinion, the trial court
thoroughly addressed Father’s issues in the order presented in his Rule
1925(b) statement, as follows:
1. The trial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion by
failing to order a shared 50-50 custody schedule between
____________________________________________
4 We note that the trial court also filed, on August 27, 2018, a separate
opinion in support of the custody order. In the opinion, the trial court
presented a detailed analysis reflecting its understanding and consideration of
the relevant statutory factors set forth in Section 5328. Trial Court Opinion,
8/27/18, at 8-19.
- 11 -
J-A03027-19
the parents and by fashioning a manifestly unreasonable
custody order reducing [F]ather’s periods of custody with
the minor child which is not in the best interest of the child.
Section 5323 of the Act provides for the following types of
awards:
(a) Types of award.—After considering the
factors set forth in section 5328 (relating to factors
to consider when awarding custody), the [c]ourt
may award any of the following types of custody if
it in the best interest of the child:
(1) Shared physical custody.
(2) Primary physical custody.
(3) Partial physical custody.
(4) Sole physical custody.
(5) Supervised physical custody.
(6) Shared legal custody.
(7) Sole legal custody.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5323.
In this case, the [c]ourt crafted an order under which the
parents shared legal and physical custody of their child. In its
Opinion in Support of Order dated August 27, 2018, the [c]ourt
cited the applicable case law governing custody starting on page
8 of its [O]pinion, and analyzed the relevant custody factors,
beginning on page 9 of its Opinion, in coming to its conclusions
about what was in the best interest of the child. There is nothing
in the law that dictates that the [c]ourt must order a shared 50-
50 custody schedule between the parents, unless the [c]ourt finds
it to be in the best interests of the child.
In this case, Father’s main focus in the litigation is to achieve
a mathematically precise 50-50 custody split. He received the
impression the last time he was before the [C]ourt in custody
litigation that the judge would move him to a complete 50-50.
(Transcript [N.T.] March 26, 2018, p. 13 l. 8-20). He believes that
this is a natural split. He believes that he [sic] if he gets less than
a 50-50 split[,] he is being presented as a second[-]class option.
([Id.], page 32). Father testified that it is a zero-sum game, and
he does not feel that his family or he should be considered as
second-class in this situation. (Id., p. 32-33.)
- 12 -
J-A03027-19
Father presented in testimony as being more concerned
about achieving a 50-50 split for himself than caring about the
effect of the order on the child. It would not be in the child’s best
interest to craft an order that achieves a 50-50 split solely because
that is what Father wants. The order the [c]ourt crafted gave
Father every Wednesday after school until 8 PM with the child[,]
and every other weekend from 6 PM on Thursday until Sunday
night at 8 PM. This maintains a consistent contact between Father
and the child[,] so as to maintain their bond.
The [c]ourt respectfully submits that this Order is not
manifestly unreasonable. The [c]ourt eliminated one Sunday
night from Father’s schedule, based on the child[’s] interview[,]
when the child indicated that it made her very anxious to have to
go to school on Monday morning from Father’s house. She said
she felt more comfortable going to school with her Mother on
Monday morning, because she knows they will be early. The child
presented as a very anxious child, who mentioned subjects like
death in her interview with the [c]ourt. The [c]ourt believes that
it is in the child’s best interests to craft a custody order which will
lessen her anxiety about being late to school.
2. The trial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion
in finding that the subject minor’s preference to reside with
[M]other was a well-reasoned preference as required by 23
Pa.C.S. 5328(a)(7).
The [c]hild was born [in March of 2008]. She was 10 years
old when the [c]ourt interviewed her. Although she is 10 years
old, the child is extremely intelligent. Both parents agree she does
extremely well in school. She is in the gifted program. She has
written books, and makes her own YouTube videos. She was very
communicative in the interview. She used vocabulary and
concepts older than her age. For example on page 2 of the
transcript, when asked by the [c]ourt to tell some details about
her life, the child responded that she has had “anxiety a bit”.
When asked to define anxiety, she responded that it was
kind of like stress. When asked to define stress, she defines it as
a feeling like you had weight on your shoulders and that you don’t
feel free, in a sense. (Child interview transcript, [6/18/18 at]
pages two and three). When asked what she worries about, the
child responded, “Stress, death, religion, feelings of a lot of my
friends and family.” (Id. p. 3 l. 22-23). She was comfortable with
- 13 -
J-A03027-19
and understood abstract concepts. The child had a good memory
and was able to recite events in detail. She credibly testified that
school is easy for her. When asked whether there is anything in
which she is interested that she is not learning at school, “I’d like
to learn more about the periodic table.” (Id. p. 7).
The child testified credibly that she feels more comfortable
at Mother’s house because Mother doesn’t try to make her do
things with which she is uncomfortable. (Id. p. 12). She testified
she does not like it when her stepmother makes her watch the
twins. She testifies that she spends more time with her [m]other
than her [f]ather, (Id. p. 13). She stated credibly that she would
not enjoy a week on-week off schedule between her [m]other and
[f]ather because she would feel very imbalanced. She says that
she does not take well to change. (Id. p. 15 l. 5). She said she
would rather be at her Mother’s [home]. (Id. p. 16 l. 13).
The [c]ourt did not base its custody determination solely on
the minor’s preference, but finds that this particular child, at 10
years of age, was capable of expressing a well-reasoned
preference. She stated clearly her preference for going to school
on Monday morning from her Mother’s house and with her Mother.
(Id. p. 14). She does not like to be late to school, and it increases
her obvious and stated anxiety. This is a well-reasoned
preference for not staying at Father’s house Sunday nights. She
further stated that she does not sleep well at Father’s house
because of the three-year-old twin stepsiblings there, who make
a lot of noise at night. (Id. p. 8) (“My brother and sister at my
dad’s scream all night-well, not all night but it’s hard to sleep with
them talking over there”), it is not in her best interest to go to
school tired because of not being able to sleep because of noise
of other children at her Father’s house.
3. The trial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion
in finding that [M]other was more able than [F]ather to
maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing
relationship with the subject minor child[,] because
[M]other has fewer family members to share time with
making her more available to the child.
Although the trial [c]ourt did find that Mother was more able
than Father to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing
relationship with Child, its finding was not based solely on the fact
- 14 -
J-A03027-19
that Mother has fewer family members to share time with, making
her more available to the child.
It is true that Mother has more time to be available to the
child. Part of the reason is because Father has a wife and two 3-
year-old twins at home to pay attention to besides this child,
whereas Mother does not have a new family. Part of the reason
is because Mother’s work hours are more conducive to her
spending time with the child than are Father’s work hours. (The
[c]ourt is not criticizing Father for having a new family or for
having more extensive work hours than Mother). However, the
reason the [c]ourt found that Mother was more able than Father
to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship
with the child was the totality of the testimony.
The testimony, beginning on page 10 of the June 18, 2018
transcript, was that Mother lives in the former marital residence,
which has been the child’s home since she was one. The child is
extremely comfortable at Mother’s residence. Mother was the
primary caretaker for the first full year of the child’s life because
Father was only home on the weekends. The parties agreed when
they were married that Mother would be a stay[-]at[-]home
mother. (Id. p. 13). Mother’s credible testimony was that for
80% of the child’s life the child has been primarily with Mother.
(Id. p. 12). Mother is a substitute teacher and is available
essentially on a 24/7 basis for the child during the summer
because she does not substitute teach in the summer. (Id. p.
22). Mother has taught the child to sew and knit. They also go
camping in summer, and[,] in winter[,] they go hiking and watch
movies and go swimming. Mother was a homeroom mother for
the child in the past school year. She has been homeroom mother
or assistant to the homeroom mother every other year. She also
coaches the child in soccer. She has a strong bond with the child.
(Id. p. 24). The totality of the testimony established that the
Mother is more able than Father to provide stability and
consistency and love for the child. This is not to say that Father
is incapable of providing stability and consistency and love.
Indeed, the parties did not dispute that the other was capable of
providing these things to the child, and did provide them. The
factor asks the [c]ourt to determine which parent is more able to
do these things. The [c]ourt finds that in this case, based in a
totality of the testimony, it is Mother.
- 15 -
J-A03027-19
4. The trial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion
in finding that the mother consistently urges the child to
think about [F]ather and offers [F]ather extra time to be
with the child.
This is a credibility determination. The [c]ourt found that
Mother’s credible testimony bore out these things. Mother
testified credibly that, at one point, Child became interested in
using an old manual typewriter, and that this development was
shared with Father by sending him a picture of [C]hild using the
typewriter. (6/18/18 N.T. at p. 26, 1.20). She testified credibly
that she taught the child how to knit, which has helped her with
stress and anxiety, and that every year they make people things
for Christmas including Father. (Id. p. 27 line 3).
On page 38 of the same transcript, [Mother] testified and
credibly gave examples of how she had encouraged the child to
have a good relationship with her [f]ather. [Mother] testified that
she campaigned hard for Father and the child to have phone calls
together every night. [Mother] says that when she has to go to
work at the YMCA[,] she offers that the child go to her father’s
[home,] even when it is her day to have the child. [Mother]
credibly testified that she talks to the child about getting her
[f]ather gifts. [Mother] testified that she and the child were in
Michigan[,] and the child asked whether she could buy jam for her
[f]ather[,] and Mother said absolutely[,] and purchased the gift.
[Mother] testified credibly that she helps the child create Father’s
Day cards. She testified credibly on page 39 that there are lots of
times when she had opportunities to have the child with her
family, and [Mother] has offered that time to Father. ([Id.,] p.
39, l. 5).
[Mother] testified credibly that in March, 2016, she went
away on a trip and offered that time to Father. She had the
opportunity to go to Paris in November, 2017, and testified
credibly on page 39 that she gave Father first choice to have that
time with the child instead of other people who would have liked
to stay with [Child]. [Id. at p. 39, at l. 21-25.] [Mother’s]
testimony on page 40 was that[,] frequently, when Father is
supposed to pick the child up at noon, Mother will ask him whether
he wants to have [Child] at 9:30 in the morning. [Id., at p. 40,
at l. 18-20.] [Mother] testified that she has invited Father and
stepmother to Child’s birthday parties every year that [Mother]
has had one. [Id. at l. 23-25.]
- 16 -
J-A03027-19
The [c]ourt found [M]other to be credible when she said
these things. The remainder of the testimony does not show the
[c]ourt’s conclusion about the Mother’s credibility to be manifestly
unreasonable. Therefore, the reviewing Court should support the
[trial court’s] credibility determination.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/28/18, at 4-10 (emphases in original).
After a careful review of the record in this matter, we reject Father’s
invitation to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. We remind
Father that we may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve
an error of law or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the
trial court. C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 443. Here, it is our determination that the trial
court’s conclusions do not involve an error of law and are not unreasonable as
shown by the evidence of record. While Father might desire additional
custodial time with Child, the trial court adequately explained its findings, and
they are supported by the competent evidence in the record. Hence, we
sustain the trial court’s determination pursuant to C.R.F.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/11/2019
- 17 -