S.K.M. v. B.R.M. ( 2016 )

J-A14022-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
S.K.M. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
B.R.M.
Appellant No. 57 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered December 9, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Civil Division at No.: 2014-4145
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY PLATT, J.:FILED AUGUST 25, 2016
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I concur in the learned Majority’s decision to vacate the trial court’s
custody order and remand this matter to the trial court. I also concur in the
Majority’s direction to the trial court to reinstate the February 25, 2015
temporary custody order pending the court’s final disposition.
However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the Memorandum
wherein the Majority appears to micromanage the trial court’s discretion with
regard to visitation, counseling, and other details of implementation. The
trial court is in the best position to evaluate alternate procedures. See
Johnson v. Lewis, 870 A.2d 368, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2005) ([T]he
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14022-16
discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded
the utmost respect . . . . 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.”).
Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
-2-