Boback, T. v. Pershing, C. v. Boback, M.
This text of Boback, T. v. Pershing, C. v. Boback, M. (Boback, T. v. Pershing, C. v. Boback, M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S20033-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TRENTEN J. BOBACK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHRISTINA M. PERSHING : : : v. : : : MICHELE L. BOBACK AND JEFFREY R. : BOBACK : : Appellant : No. 231 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered February 10, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2014-177
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: September 14, 2022
Appellant, Michele L. Boback (“Grandmother”) and Jeffrey R. Boback
(“Grandfather”) (collectively “Grandparents”), appeal from the order entered
in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, which denied their petition for
modification of custody of their minor grandchild, J.M.B (“Child”) and changed
their custodial time from unsupervised to supervised. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Appellees, Trenton J. Boback (“Father”)1 and Christina M. Pershing (“Mother”)
____________________________________________
1 Grandparents are Father’s parents. J-S20033-22
are the parents of Child, who was born in 2011. Grandparents played a
significant part in caring for Child for the first eight years of her life due to
Father’s young age, military assignments and Mother’s work schedule. On
February 5, 2020, the trial court entered a custody order granting shared legal
custody to Father and Mother, primary physical custody to Father, and partial
physical custody to Mother and Grandparents. Grandparents filed a notice of
appeal. This Court affirmed the custody order on September 16, 2020 and
our Supreme Court denied the petition for allowance of appeal on December
24, 2020 . See T.B. v. C.M.W., 240 A.3d 934 (Pa.Super. 2020) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 243 A.3d 724 (2020).
On December 9, 2020, Father filed a petition for contempt and special
relief alleging that Grandmother was inappropriately disparaging Father and
Mother to Child during her custodial time. Grandparents filed a petition for
modification of custody and motion for contempt on February 4, 2021.
Following a hearing, the court admonished Grandmother from speaking poorly
of Father and Mother and discussing matters about the custody trial with Child
but denied both Father’s and Grandparents’ petitions for contempt. The court
also determined that Father’s request for special relief and Grandparents’
petition for modification were better addressed in tandem as they both
involved changes to the custody schedule. On October 18, 2021 and October
20, 2021, respectively, Grandparents filed an amended petition for
modification of custody and amended petition for special relief, requesting
-2- J-S20033-22
additional custodial time so Child can spend more time with Carissa Boback
(“Paternal Aunt”) before she deploys for military duty. The court conducted a
summary hearing to address these petitions on November 23, 2021.
Father presented testimony by way of a summary of his position through
his counsel, which he affirmed under oath. Father lives in South Carolina with
his wife, Justine Boback (“Stepmother”), Child and his two other children.
Father and Mother have a great co-parenting relationship. They respectfully
and civilly discuss all legal custody issues with one another and cooperate with
one another to make custody arrangements. However, Father’s relationship
with Grandparents is strained because of Grandmother’s regular disparaging
and disrespectful behavior towards Father and Stepmother. Grandmother lists
Father as “Earl” and Stepmother as “Dependa” on her phone, which the court
previously determined were derogatory epithets. Grandmother also continues
to disparage Father and Stepmother in front of Child even though it upsets
Child to the point of crying. Father noted an incident where Grandmother told
Child that Father and Stepmother were liars and showed Child text messages
between Father, Stepmother and Grandmother. Father also reported that
during Christmas, Grandparents sent Child 30 gifts but did not send anything
to Father’s other children, which made Child uncomfortable and upset for her
siblings.
Father reported that other than the continuing issue with Grandparents,
Child is happy, healthy and growing in a stable, loving environment. Child is
-3- J-S20033-22
doing well in school and has a great relationship with Father, Mother,
Stepmother, siblings and extended family. Father repaired his relationship
with Paternal Aunt and arranged for her to come to his home for Thanksgiving
to spend time with Child and her siblings. Father stated that Paternal Aunt
did not ask or know that Grandparents filed a petition for modification on the
basis that she needed to spend more time with Child.
Grandparents presented testimony by way of a summary through their
counsel as follows. Grandparents were Child’s primary caregivers for the first
eight years of her life and want additional time to maintain a strong
relationship with her. Grandparents go the “extra mile” to spend time with
Child, including traveling to South Carolina, booking hotels, and planning fun
activities for her. Grandparents have a loving relationship with Child and Child
expresses a desire to spend more time with them after most of her visits.
Father does not provide Grandparents updates on Child’s life and is slow to
communicate in setting up visitation. Grandparents denied talking negatively
about Father and Mother or discussing custody matters in front of Child.
Grandparents also raised concerns about Child struggling in school and
scratches on Child’s face while Child was in Father’s custody.
Grandmother affirmed the testimony by summary under oath and
provided additional direct testimony as follows. Grandmother denied that she
was talking about Father or the court case to Child when Child started crying
during her summer visit with Grandparents. Grandmother stated that she
-4- J-S20033-22
asked Child if she could throw out some old clothes and toys that Child had
outgrown and Child became upset. After Child got upset, Grandmother
refrained from discussing it further. Grandfather also affirmed the testimony
by summary under oath and provided additional direct testimony that
supported Grandmother’s account of events.
Mother testified that she has not seen any scratches on Child’s face.
Additionally, Mother said Child is doing well in school and recently got tested
for gifted classes. Further, after Child came back from visiting Grandparents
during the summer, Child told Mother that Grandfather had to stop
Grandmother from talking about things that upset her.
The court interviewed Child, who was ten years old at the time of the
hearing, in the presence of counsel. Mother, who represented herself, waived
her right to be present. Child testified that she is doing great in school except
for one or two bad grades and recently tested for gifted classes. Child stated
that she is happy living with Father, Stepmother and her siblings. Child
testified that she loves her brothers and they play games together. She also
has her own room, has pets that she loves, and close friends in the
neighborhood and at school. Child testified that she would not change the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S20033-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TRENTEN J. BOBACK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHRISTINA M. PERSHING : : : v. : : : MICHELE L. BOBACK AND JEFFREY R. : BOBACK : : Appellant : No. 231 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered February 10, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2014-177
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: September 14, 2022
Appellant, Michele L. Boback (“Grandmother”) and Jeffrey R. Boback
(“Grandfather”) (collectively “Grandparents”), appeal from the order entered
in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, which denied their petition for
modification of custody of their minor grandchild, J.M.B (“Child”) and changed
their custodial time from unsupervised to supervised. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Appellees, Trenton J. Boback (“Father”)1 and Christina M. Pershing (“Mother”)
____________________________________________
1 Grandparents are Father’s parents. J-S20033-22
are the parents of Child, who was born in 2011. Grandparents played a
significant part in caring for Child for the first eight years of her life due to
Father’s young age, military assignments and Mother’s work schedule. On
February 5, 2020, the trial court entered a custody order granting shared legal
custody to Father and Mother, primary physical custody to Father, and partial
physical custody to Mother and Grandparents. Grandparents filed a notice of
appeal. This Court affirmed the custody order on September 16, 2020 and
our Supreme Court denied the petition for allowance of appeal on December
24, 2020 . See T.B. v. C.M.W., 240 A.3d 934 (Pa.Super. 2020) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 243 A.3d 724 (2020).
On December 9, 2020, Father filed a petition for contempt and special
relief alleging that Grandmother was inappropriately disparaging Father and
Mother to Child during her custodial time. Grandparents filed a petition for
modification of custody and motion for contempt on February 4, 2021.
Following a hearing, the court admonished Grandmother from speaking poorly
of Father and Mother and discussing matters about the custody trial with Child
but denied both Father’s and Grandparents’ petitions for contempt. The court
also determined that Father’s request for special relief and Grandparents’
petition for modification were better addressed in tandem as they both
involved changes to the custody schedule. On October 18, 2021 and October
20, 2021, respectively, Grandparents filed an amended petition for
modification of custody and amended petition for special relief, requesting
-2- J-S20033-22
additional custodial time so Child can spend more time with Carissa Boback
(“Paternal Aunt”) before she deploys for military duty. The court conducted a
summary hearing to address these petitions on November 23, 2021.
Father presented testimony by way of a summary of his position through
his counsel, which he affirmed under oath. Father lives in South Carolina with
his wife, Justine Boback (“Stepmother”), Child and his two other children.
Father and Mother have a great co-parenting relationship. They respectfully
and civilly discuss all legal custody issues with one another and cooperate with
one another to make custody arrangements. However, Father’s relationship
with Grandparents is strained because of Grandmother’s regular disparaging
and disrespectful behavior towards Father and Stepmother. Grandmother lists
Father as “Earl” and Stepmother as “Dependa” on her phone, which the court
previously determined were derogatory epithets. Grandmother also continues
to disparage Father and Stepmother in front of Child even though it upsets
Child to the point of crying. Father noted an incident where Grandmother told
Child that Father and Stepmother were liars and showed Child text messages
between Father, Stepmother and Grandmother. Father also reported that
during Christmas, Grandparents sent Child 30 gifts but did not send anything
to Father’s other children, which made Child uncomfortable and upset for her
siblings.
Father reported that other than the continuing issue with Grandparents,
Child is happy, healthy and growing in a stable, loving environment. Child is
-3- J-S20033-22
doing well in school and has a great relationship with Father, Mother,
Stepmother, siblings and extended family. Father repaired his relationship
with Paternal Aunt and arranged for her to come to his home for Thanksgiving
to spend time with Child and her siblings. Father stated that Paternal Aunt
did not ask or know that Grandparents filed a petition for modification on the
basis that she needed to spend more time with Child.
Grandparents presented testimony by way of a summary through their
counsel as follows. Grandparents were Child’s primary caregivers for the first
eight years of her life and want additional time to maintain a strong
relationship with her. Grandparents go the “extra mile” to spend time with
Child, including traveling to South Carolina, booking hotels, and planning fun
activities for her. Grandparents have a loving relationship with Child and Child
expresses a desire to spend more time with them after most of her visits.
Father does not provide Grandparents updates on Child’s life and is slow to
communicate in setting up visitation. Grandparents denied talking negatively
about Father and Mother or discussing custody matters in front of Child.
Grandparents also raised concerns about Child struggling in school and
scratches on Child’s face while Child was in Father’s custody.
Grandmother affirmed the testimony by summary under oath and
provided additional direct testimony as follows. Grandmother denied that she
was talking about Father or the court case to Child when Child started crying
during her summer visit with Grandparents. Grandmother stated that she
-4- J-S20033-22
asked Child if she could throw out some old clothes and toys that Child had
outgrown and Child became upset. After Child got upset, Grandmother
refrained from discussing it further. Grandfather also affirmed the testimony
by summary under oath and provided additional direct testimony that
supported Grandmother’s account of events.
Mother testified that she has not seen any scratches on Child’s face.
Additionally, Mother said Child is doing well in school and recently got tested
for gifted classes. Further, after Child came back from visiting Grandparents
during the summer, Child told Mother that Grandfather had to stop
Grandmother from talking about things that upset her.
The court interviewed Child, who was ten years old at the time of the
hearing, in the presence of counsel. Mother, who represented herself, waived
her right to be present. Child testified that she is doing great in school except
for one or two bad grades and recently tested for gifted classes. Child stated
that she is happy living with Father, Stepmother and her siblings. Child
testified that she loves her brothers and they play games together. She also
has her own room, has pets that she loves, and close friends in the
neighborhood and at school. Child testified that she would not change the
current custody schedule and that the amount of time she spends with
Grandparents is “actually perfect.”
Child recounted an incident when she was visiting Grandparents, where
Grandfather was not at the house and Grandmother began talking to her about
-5- J-S20033-22
custody matters. Child started crying and asked Grandmother to stop but
Grandmother did not stop until Grandfather returned home and told her to
stop. Child stated that she got upset because Grandmother was saying that
Father and Stepmother were liars and are “the bad guys.” Grandmother also
told Child that that she would sell all of Child’s toys because Father and
Stepmother would never let Grandparents see Child again if Child stayed with
Father. Additionally, Child stated that Grandmother repeatedly asks Child if
she wants to live with Grandparents again and badgers her until she says yes.
Child recounted another incident where Grandmother showed her text
messages between Grandmother, Father and Stepmother. Grandmother told
Child that Father and Stepmother were lying in the texts stating that Child did
not want to speak with Grandparents on the phone. Child testified that the
texts were accurate and that she did not want to speak to Grandparents
because she was still upset about Grandmother’s disparaging comments about
Father and Stepmother.
Child testified that Father and Stepmother do not say anything bad
about Grandparents to her and encourage her to speak to Grandparents. Child
stated that she thinks Mother and Stepmother are best friends and believes
that Father and Mother are friends as well. Additionally, Father does not say
bad things about Mother to Child and encourages her to love everyone.
After considering all the evidence, the court entered a custody order on
February 10, 2022, which largely maintained Child’s previous custody
-6- J-S20033-22
schedule. However, the court restricted Grandparents’ custodial time to
supervised physical custody during the summer and holidays, at Father and
Mother’s reasonable discretion. On February 22, 2022, Grandparents filed a
timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Grandparents raise the following issues for our review:
Does the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding primary custody to [Father]?
Does the trial court fail to consider the best interests of the minor child when awarding [Father] primary custody?
Does the trial court commit an error by requiring that [Grandparents’] custodial time with the minor child be supervised?
(Grandparents’ Brief at 6).
In their issues combined, Grandparents assert that they were Child’s
primary caregivers and performed all parental duties for Child until 2020 when
Father was awarded primary physical custody. Grandparents contend that the
court failed to consider Father’s actions in limiting Grandparents’ custodial
time and placed too much emphasis on one incident where Child became upset
in Grandparents’ care. Further, Grandparents argue that they are better
equipped to provide Child with stability because Father is in the military and
could be deployed for service while Grandmother is not working and can
provide full-time care for Child. Grandparents claim they provided a loving,
supportive home for Child and attended to all her needs for most of her life.
-7- J-S20033-22
Grandparents insist Child has a strong bond with them and reducing
Grandparents’ time with Child to short periods of supervised physical custody
subject to Father and Mother’s discretion would be severely detrimental to
Child’s relationship with Grandparents. Grandparents conclude the court
failed to adequately consider Child’s best interests in entering the instant
custody order, and this Court should vacate the custody order. We disagree.
In reviewing a child custody order:
[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. This Court 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, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed 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.
S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation
omitted). “With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best
interests of the child. This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of
all the factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and
spiritual well-being of the child.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 334
(Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710, 68 A.3d 909 (2013) (quoting
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa.Super. 2011)).
-8- J-S20033-22
The Child Custody Act provides:
§ 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) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services).
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.
(5) The availability of extended family.
(6) The child’s sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.
-9- J-S20033-22
(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).
After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and
the relevant law, we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by
competent evidence. See S.J.S., supra. Consequently, we affirm the
custody order based on the rationale provided in the trial court’s opinion.
The court considered all the evidence as it pertained to the custody
- 10 - J-S20033-22
factors and determined that factors one, four, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and
thirteen weighed against Grandparents and no new credible evidence was
presented on the remaining factors as to weigh them in favor of any party.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/10/22, at 12-22). Specifically, the court
found that Grandmother consistently disparages Father and Stepmother and
discusses custody matters in front of Child. (Id. at 18-19). In doing so,
Grandmother disregarded the court’s prior admonitions, Child’s pleas to stop,
and Child’s emotional welfare. (Id.) Further, the court decided Father has
shown a willingness to mend relationships and cooperate with others in Child’s
life, as demonstrated by his strong co-parenting relationship with Mother and
repaired relationship with his sister. (Id. at 12-13). Additionally, Father is
more likely to foster a continued relationship between Child and other parties
based on Child’s testimony that Father encourages her to speak to
Grandparents and to love everyone. (Id.)
The court further determined that Child is in a stable, loving
environment where she is happy and doing well in all aspects of her life. (Id.
at 14-15). Child clearly and explicitly stated her preference to remain in
Father’s primary custody and indicated that the current custody schedule was
to her liking. (Id. at 17-18). Child also expressed her distress at
Grandmother’s negative comments about Father and Stepmother and
pressure to discuss custody preferences, and Child indicated that she does not
know how to make Grandmother stop. (Id.). Accordingly, the court found it
- 11 - J-S20033-22
was in Child’s best interests to remain in Father’s primary physical custody
and restrict Grandparents’ time with Child to supervised physical custody.
See M.J.M., supra. As to the foregoing points, we adopt the court’s
reasoning as our own. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/14/2022
- 12 - Received 3/10/2022 4:47:27 PMCirculated 08/31/2022 Superior Court 07:04 Western AM District
Filed 3/10/2022 4:47:27 PM Superior Court Western District 231 WDA 2022
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION
TRENTEN J. BOBACK, No. 2014 — 177
Plaintiff,
V.
CHRISTINA M. WENDELL, now CHRISTINA M. PERSHING,
Defendant, S7
MICHELE L. BOBACK and JEFFREY R. BOBACK,
Intervenors.
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff: RANDI J. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE
For Defendant: SELF-REPRESENTED
For Intervenors: LAUREN DARBOUZE, ESQUIRE ANDREW SHESKO, ESQUIRE
OPINION
FLEMING, J., February 9, 2022. This case comes before the Court on four pleadings,
namely: ( 1) Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt and Special Relief, filed December 9, 2020; (2)
Intervenors' Amended Petition for Modification of Custody filed October 18, 2021; (3)
Intervenors' Petition for Special Relief filed October 18, 2021; and (4) Intervenors' Amended Petition for Special Relief filed October 20, 2021.
'This Court addressed the special relief component only. See PROCEDURAL. HISTORY, below. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Trenten J. Boback ["Father"], and Defendant, Christina M. Wendell, now
Christina M. Pershing ["Mother"], are the parents of one minor child, namely, J.M.B. (a10-year-
old female born in 2011) ["Child"]. Intervenors, Michele L. Boback and Jeffrey R. Boback
[individually and respectively "Paternal Grandmother" and "Paternal Grandfather," and
collectively "Paternal Grandparents"], are Child's paternal grandparents. Father and Mother share
legal custody of Child; Father exercises primary physical custody; Mother has partial physical
custody; and Paternal Grandparents have partial physical custody.
This Court filed the operative custody order on February 5, 2020. See ORDER DATED FEB.
4, 2020, FILED FEB. 5, 2020; see also OPINION AND ORDER DATED J AN. 15, 2020, FILED JAN. 16,
2020. Paternal Grandparents appealed to the Superior Court. See NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED M AR.
4, 2020. The Superior Court affirmed this Court's Order, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied Paternal Grandparents' Petition for Allowance of Appeal. See T.B. v. C.M. W., now C.M.P.
v. M.L.B. and J. R. B, 2020 WL 5548322 (Pa. Super. Sept. 16, 2020), allowance ol'appeal denied, 2020 WL 7654296 (Pa. Dec. 24, 2020).
Father filed the instant Petition for Contempt and Special Relief on December 9, 2020. On
February 4, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed aPetition for Modification of Custody ["Petition
for Modification"] and a Motion for Contempt. 2 [Collectively, this Court refers to the two contempt petitions as "Cross-Contempt Petitions."] The Court conducted hearings on the Cross-
Contempt Petitions on April 13, 2021; April 26, 2021; and July 13, 2021, via Zoom video
conferencing pursuant to Cambria County's Administrative Order dated June 30, 2020, which
recommended the use of Advanced Communication Technology during the coronavirus pandemic.
Ultimately, the Court denied Paternal Grandparents' Motion for Contempt. See OPINION AND
ORDER DATED AUG. 30, 2021, FILED AUG. 31, 2021. The Court found Paternal Grandmother's
actions to be "shocking" but not punishable by contempt; the Court also determined that Father's
request for special relief was most appropriately resolved in conjunction with custody modification
proceedings. Id. Thus, this Court denied Father's Petition for Contempt and Special Relief in part
zFather filed preliminary objections to the Petition for Modification, which were eventually denied. This Court refrained from cataloging the filings and proceedings related to the preliminary objections in a largely unfruitful attempt at brevity. 2 and referred the special relief portion of the Petition to aHearing Officer for consolidation with
ongoing custody modification proceedings. Id.
On October 18, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed the instant Petition for Special Relief
and Amended Petition for Modification of Custody ["Amended Petition for Modification"]. On
October 20, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed the Amended Petition for Special Relief considered
herein. On October 22, 2021, Hearing Officer Christopher G. Gvozdich filed a Report and
Recommendation confirming that Father and Paternal Grandparents requested ade novo hearing
before the undersigned judge.
This Court conducted ahalf-day summary hearing on November 23, 2021, to address
Paternal Grandparents' Amended Petition for Modification, as well as all outstanding petitions for
special relief filed by any party. See ORDER DATED OCT. 25, 2021, FILED OCT. 26, 2021.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Father presented testimony by summary through his counsel, which he affirmed under oath.
Paternal Grandparents each presented evidence through a combination of counsel's verified
summary and direct testimony.`r Mother testified directly, as she is self represented. Additionally,
this Court interviewed Child in camera. Child answered questions from this Court, Father's
counsel, and Paternal Grandparents' attorney; Mother waived her right to be present.
A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts, as well as those facts set
forth in the court's review of the custody factors below:
1. Father and Mother have astrong co-parenting relationship; they discuss all relevant issues
regarding Child's upbringing. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 10-11. Additionally, Father
and Mother demonstrate admirable cooperation and civility. By way of example, Father
and Mother agreed to alter their typical holiday arrangements in 2021. Ultimately, Child
would remain with Father for Thanksgiving to accommodate family visits and, in turn,
3 This Court scheduled asummary hearing because of the number of petitions under consideration and the limited time (one-half day) for presentation. 4 To avoid unnecessary repetition, this Court will not parallel cite the summary testimony affirmations with the substantive summary testimony but, instead, notes the location of the affirmations here. The parties' respective affirmations appear in the transcript as follows: N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 19-20 (Father); 34 (Paternal Grandmother); and 35-36 (Paternal Grandfather). 3 Child would spend approximately two full weeks with Mother during the Christmas break.
N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 14-15, 56; See also AMENDED PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF, FILED OCT. 20, 2021, at ¶ 10.
2. Father has demonstrated awillingness and ability to mend damaged relationships. By way
of example, Father repaired his relationship with his sister, Carissa Boback ["Paternal
Aunt"], and invited her to his home around Thanksgiving 2021. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at
pp. 14-15, 56. Paternal Aunt had testified against Father or otherwise testified adversely
to his interests in aprior proceeding. See generally OPINION DATED J AN. 15, 2020, FILED
J AN. 16, 2020, ["2020 CUSTODY OPINION"].
3. Child describes Father's wife, Justine ["Stepmother"], and Mother as "best friends;" Child
loves the cordial relationship Stepmother and Mother share. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 64.
4. Child is generally not privy to the conversations between Father and Mother but believes
they are friends, too. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 64-65.
5. Father and Mother share a respectful relationship; their relationship is akin to that of
friends. N. T.( Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 11.
6. Child has three half- siblings. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 54. Two younger half-brothers
live in Father's household; one younger half-sister lives in Mother's household.
7. Child testified with a degree of intelligence and maturity that exceeds what would be
expected of achild her chronological age ( 10 years old). Child appeared to be happy —
happy living in Father's household and happily looking forward to spending time with
Mother near Christmas 2021. N. T.( Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 54, 65, 70.
8. Prior to the Hearing, Father informed Child she would be interviewed by the Court. Father
told Child to answer questions truthfully. Father did not discuss custody issues with Child,
tell Child what to say, or influence Child in any way regarding custody or other court
matters. N.T. ( Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 52-53, 65, 67-68.
9. Child enjoys living with Father, and she likes his house in South Carolina. N. T.( Nov. 23,
2021), at pp. 54, 65.
4 10. Child has friends who live on the same street in South Carolina. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 65.
11. Child enjoys the school she attends in South Carolina. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 65.
12. Child does well in school with very few exceptions. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 53, 68.
Child has been tested for agifted learning program and was awaiting results at the time of the hearing. Id. at p. 53.
13. Child refers to Paternal Grandparents as "Pap" and "Mimi." N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 56-57.
14. Child refers to Stepmother's parents ["Step- Grandparents"] as "Pappy" and "Grammy." N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 57.
15. Paternal Grandparents told Child that Step-Grandparents are not her family. N.T. (Nov.
23, 2021), at pp. 7, 44.
16. Paternal Grandmother discusses custody issues with Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 6-7, 57-61, 63.
17. Paternal Grandmother disparages Father, Stepmother, and — to alesser extent — Mother in
front of Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 6-7, 59, 64.
18. Paternal Grandmother tells Child that Father and Stepmother "lie" and that they are "the bad guys." N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 59, 64.
19. For Christmas 2020, Paternal Grandparents sent Child over 30 gifts but sent nothing to
their other grandchildren (Child's two half-brothers). N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 13.
20. During a period of summer custody, Paternal Grandmother told Child that Paternal
Grandparents were going to "sell" or "get rid of Child's clothes and toys at their house
because Child would "never see" Paternal Grandparents if she lived with Father and Step- Mother. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 66.
21. Paternal Grandmother repeatedly asks Child if she wants to live with Paternal
Grandparents. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 59-60, 66. Sometimes Child answers "no" and
5 sometimes Child ignores the question, but Paternal Grandmother "bugs" Child until she
says she wants to live with Paternal Grandparents. Id. at pp. 59-60.
22. Child testified credibly that she has made her desires clear to Paternal Grandmother,
namely, that Child wants to live with Father and Stepmother. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 57, 60.
23. Paternal Grandmother knows that Child wants to continue living with Father and
Stepmother in South Carolina. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 59-60.
24. Paternal Grandmother upsets Child by discussing custody issues with her; by disparaging
Father, Stepmother, and Mother; and by treating Child's half-brothers less favorably than
Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 13, 57-66. Paternal Grandmother knows that she upsets
Child by these behaviors. Id. at pp. 60-61. Paternal Grandmother regularly disregards
Child's feelings and continues to engage in the offensive behaviors. Id. at pp. 13, 57-66.
25. Paternal Grandmother fails to respect Child's wishes and does not care that her actions are
harmful to Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 57-58, 60-61.
26. Paternal Grandmother does not appreciate that her actions are harmful to the quality of life
Father and Mother can foster in their respective households. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 13.
27. On at least one occasion, Paternal Grandmother's discussion of custody issues and/or
disparagement of Father and Stepmother caused Child to become so upset that she cried. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 58, 60-61, 66.
28. On at least one occasion, when Paternal Grandmother began discussing custody issues or
disparaging parents or Stepmother in front of Child, Child explicitly told Paternal
Grandmother to stop. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 57-58. Paternal Grandmother refused
to stop until Paternal Grandfather intervened. Id. at pp. 58, 65-66. This is the only
established instance in which Paternal Grandfather intervened to stop Paternal
Grandmother from upsetting Child. Id. at p. 12.
29. Paternal Grandparents both testified that neither of them discusses custody issues with
Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 31-32, 36-37. Both also testified that Paternal
6 Grandfather was never required to intervene to stop Paternal Grandmother from discussing
custody issues with Child that upset her. Id. Paternal Grandparents' testimony in this
regard lacked credibility.
30. Paternal Grandfather largely enables Paternal Grandmother's outrageous behavior by
generally remaining passive when Paternal Grandmother upsets Child.
31. Paternal Grandfather generally does not discuss custody issues with Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 57-58.
32. The testimony of Paternal Grandparents substantially lacked candor and credibility on
nearly all material issues. Some of their claims are baseless fabrications, including an
allegation (by summary) that Child may not be safe in Father's care because of scratches
on her face. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 21. Mother spoke to and saw Child (presumably
by video) afew days prior to the hearing. Id. at p. 48. Mother did not observe any scratches
on Child's face. Id. Mother's testimony was pointed and credible. This Court also
observed Child during the in-camera interview by video conference. Child did not have
any scratches, scars, bruises, or other suspicious marks on her face, nor did she testify to any injuries.
33. Portions of Paternal Grandparents' testimony obdurately attempted to relitigate historical
facts that were determined in the 2020 Custody Opinion, which was appealed and affirmed.
By way of example, Paternal Grandmother testified that Paternal Grandparents permitted
Father "liberal visitation" with Child when Paternal Grandparents had primary physical
custody of Child. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 33. By way of further example, Paternal
Grandfather testified, "As far as [Father] not getting visitation, he never wanted it. We
offered many, many times[.]" Id. at p. 41. However, this Court previously determined that
"Paternal Grandparents significantly thwarted Father's efforts to maintain communication
and to have meaningful custody of Child after Father joined the active duty military." 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at ¶ 36.
34. Paternal Grandmother obdurately attempted to "feed" Paternal Grandfather information
during his testimony. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 39.
7 35. Paternal Grandmother continues to list Father as "Earl" in her phone, without remorse.
I NTERVENORS' Ex. 1; N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 9-10. This Court previously determined
that "Earl" is a derogatory epithet. OPINION DATED AUG. 30, FILED AUG. 31 ["CROSS
CONTEMPT OPINION"], at ¶ 19.
36. Paternal Grandmother refers to Stepmother as "Dependa." N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 10.
This Court previously determined that "Dependa" is a derogatory epithet. CROSS
CONTEMPT OPINION, at ¶ 19.
37. Paternal Grandmother refers to Father as a "sperm donor." N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 10.
38. Despite Paternal Grandmother's outrageous behavior, Father and Stepmother encourage
Child to speak with Paternal Grandparents. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 61.
39. When Paternal Grandmother is not discussing custody issues with Child or disparaging
Child's parents or Stepmother, Child enjoys her time with Paternal Grandparents. N.T.
(Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 69. They engage in activities such as visiting water parks, and Child
describes the time as "like avacation." Id. However, Child does not know how to stop
Paternal Grandmother from upsetting her because Paternal Grandmother has "done it for
so long." Id. at p. 66.
40. Child "kind of forgave" Paternal Grandmother for her actions but needs more time to
forgive her completely. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 70.
41. At times, Child does not want to speak to Paternal Grandparents because of Paternal
Grandmother's behavior. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 63-64, 69. An incident near
Thanksgiving 2020 particularly upset Child. Id. at pp. 63-64.
42. Child did not want to see Paternal Grandparents for Christmas 2021. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021),
at p. 70. Child was looking forward to spending time with Mother, Stepfather, and her
half-sister. Id.
43. Child testified sincerely and credibly on all issues, with one caveat. Child may have
conflated some aspects of different incidents involving Paternal Grandmother (e.g.,
whether Child cried during asummer incident, aThanksgiving incident, or both). This
Court finds the potential conflation of these minute details to be understandable; and it does
8 not impair her overall credibility in light of her age, the number of incidents, and the time between incidents.
44. At the conclusion of the summary hearing, all of the parties confirmed that they had no
additional evidence to present; and they agreed that afull evidentiary hearing was not
necessary. N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 72-73.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
This Court begins its discussion with Paternal Grandparents' Petition for Special Relief
and Amended Petition for Special Relief, filed two days apart. See generally PETITION FOR
SPECIAL RELIEF, FILED OCT. 18, 2021, ["OCTOBER 18, 2021, PETITION"]; AMENDED PETITION FOR
SPECIAL RELIEF, FILED OCT. 20, 2021, ["OCTOBER 20, 2021, PETITION"].
At the November 23, 2021, hearing, Paternal Grandparents' attorney asked to withdraw the
October 18, 2021, Petition. This Petition alleged that Mother would be deployed by the military
in November 2021 and would be unable to exercise her periods of custody. See OCT. 18, 2021,
PETITION, at ¶ 8. Paternal Grandparents sought to acquire all of Mother's custodial time. Id. at ¶
9. The allegations in the October 18, 2021, Petition are, and always have been, patently false.
Mother is not even enlisted in the military.
In the October 20, 2021, Petition, Paternal Grandparents allege that Paternal Aunt ( their
daughter, who is not aparty to this case) would soon be transferred by the military to North
Carolina to await imminent deployment. See OCT. 20, 2021, PETITION, at ¶ 8. Paternal
Grandparents sought additional custodial time "to allow for the minor child and her aunt to spend
meaningful time together prior to her deployment." Id. at ¶ 9.
The October 20, 2021, Petition is an abuse of the special relief process for several reasons.
First, special relief is primarily for emergency or otherwise important relief. See S W.D. v. S.A. R.,
96 A.3d 396, 405 (Pa. Super. 2014); Steele v. Steele, 545 A.2d 376, 378 (Pa. Super. 1988). This
is neither. Second, there is no evidence, or even allegations, to suggest that Child and Paternal
Aunt have aspecial relationship to support the appropriateness of the requested relief. In contrast,
this Court previously noted that Paternal Aunt has had limited contact with Child and the family.
See 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at 41. Third, despite learning that Paternal Aunt was not being
9 "imminently deployed" (the entire rationale for the requested relief), Paternal Grandparents did
not withdraw the Amended Petition for Special Relief. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), pp. at 3-4.
Fourth, the custody order affords Mother and Father the ultimate authority to mutually
decide Child's holiday schedule. Paternal Grandparents knew that Thanksgiving 2021 would have
been Mother's year for the holiday but for her agreement to allow Child to stay with Father because
Child's Step-Grandparents would be visiting. OCT. 20, 2021, PETITION, at ¶ 10. Paternal
Grandparents' requested relief not only grossly disrespects Father's arrangements, but Mother's as well.
Fifth, Paternal Grandparents attempted to use Paternal Aunt as aproxy to acquire additional
custody time for themselves. During Father's custodial time, it is his prerogative to determine
whether or to what extent Child will spend time with her extended family. Furthermore, when
Paternal Grandparents filed the October 20, 2021, Petition, Father had already arranged aholiday
plan with Paternal Aunt; and Paternal Grandparents knew this. OCT. 20, 2021, PETITION, at ¶ 11.
Paternal Aunt never asked Paternal Grandparents to file the October 20, 2021, Petition; and she
was angry with them for doing so. N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at pp. 15, 38. Paternal Grandfather
admitted that Paternal Aunt was merely apawn to acquire additional custody time for Paternal
Grandparents. Paternal Grandfather testified, "Yeah, [Paternal Aunt] didn't want us to say that
and ask for time[,] but we needed to get something[.]" N. T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 38. By using
Paternal Aunt as aproxy in an attempt to acquire additional custody time for themselves, Paternal
Grandparents willfully caused potential harm to Father's relationship with Paternal Aunt, which he had recently repaired.
At this point, the October 18, 2021, Petition is withdrawn, and the October 20, 2021,
Petition is moot. However, this Court stresses, in the strongest terms possible, that — but for those
outcomes — the Petitions would have been denied. The former was frivolous, as it was filled with
false and mistaken information. The latter was an abuse of the special relief process, as well as a
disingenuous ploy; and Paternal Grandparents did not withdraw the action when they learned that
the basis for the requested relief was no longer applicable. Paternal Grandparents' conduct and
intent in filing and litigating (or otherwise belatedly withdrawing) the October 18 and October 20,
2021, Petitions was obdurate, vexatious, and in the utmost bad faith. Accordingly, this Court will
10 award Father reasonable counsel fees for the preparation and litigation of said petitions. See 23
PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. §5339. Mother is self-represented; otherwise, she would also be awarded
reasonable counsel fees.
Next, this Court briefly discusses Father's request for special relief, namely, asuspension
of Paternal Grandparents' partial physical custody, as well as limiting Paternal Grandparents to
virtual contact monitored by Child's counselor until the counselor recommends reinstatement. See
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND SPECIAL RELIEF, FILED DEC. 9, 2020. Ordinarily, only temporary
relief can be granted for aspecial relief petition. However, as noted in the procedural history
above, this Court consolidated the special relief action with the ongoing modification proceedings.
Thus, indefinite relief is permissible at this juncture because the modification proceedings have
concluded.
In a custody detennination, 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. See 23 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. §5328(a)(1-16). As apreface to the analysis
below, this Court notes that Paternal Grandparents' testimony substantially lacked candor and
credibility on nearly all material issues. To the extent their evidence impacted the custody factors
at all, it was only by virtue of the sheer lack of candor and credibility in their testimony. In other
words, Paternal Grandparents failed to produce any evidence that would improve their position
under any of the custody factors. However, credible testimony presented by Father, Mother, and
Child significantly influenced the analysis and made it clear that it is in Child's best interests to
have only supervised contact with Paternal Grandparents at this time, unless or until Paternal
Grandparents show amarked change in their behavior, conduct, and interactions. To that extent,
G On asimilar note, the Amended Petition for Modification was never withdrawn or corrected. Like the October 18, 2021, Petition, it alleged that Mother was being deployed by the military and requested all of her custodial time in addition to primary physical and shared legal custody. See AMENDED PETITION FOR MODIFICATION, at ¶ 18; WHEREFORE CLAUSE. Mother is not in the military. Paternal Grandparents, through their counsel, acknowledged the false allegations in the October 18, 2021, Petition but proceeded to litigate the Amended Petition for Modification anyway. See N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 3. This is consistent with Paternal Grandparents' refusal to take responsibility for their actions and admit wrongdoing. Paternal Grandparents could have asked to proceed on the original Petition for Modification but chose to remain obstinate and obdurate.
11 even if Father could not exercise primary physical custody for some reason, Mother would be the
appropriate party to receive primary physical custody — NOT Paternal Grandparents.
In the case at bar, this Court considered the enumerated factors as follows:
1. Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact
between the child and another party.
Father and Mother are both the most likely to encourage and permit frequent and
continuing contact between Child and another party — by awide margin. As noted above, Mother
and Father cooperated to modify Child's Thanksgiving and Christmas 2021 holiday schedule to
accommodate their respective family issues. Similarly, Father repaired his relationship with
Paternal Aunt and facilitated contact with Child despite Paternal Aunt's prior testimony against
Father. Although Paternal Aunt is not aparty to this case, Father's willingness to mend fences is
noteworthy. Heartwarmingly, Child believes that Stepmother and Mother are best friends, and
that Father and Mother are friends, too. This is how achild should view the relationship between
her parents, and it is apowerful testament to the civility and cooperation between Mother and
Father.
In contrast, nothing has changed this Court's prior analysis regarding Paternal
Grandparents' failure and refusal to foster relationships with Child's parents, namely, "Paternal
Grandparents had ample opportunities to foster aloving relationship between Child and her active
duty military father (their son), but they failed or refused to do so." 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at p.
25. Paternal Grandparents continue to refer to Father as "Earl" in their exhibits, which this Court
previously determined is aderogatory term. See I NTERVENORS' Ex. 1; N.T. ( Nov. 23, 2021), at
pp. 9-10; OPINION DATED AUG. 30, FILED AUG. 31 ["CROSS CONTEMPT OPINION"], at ¶ 19. Paternal
Grandmother was unapologetic, but the derogatory name is illustrative of her scorn,
disparagement, and disrespect for Father. By way of examples, Paternal Grandmother told Child
that Father is responsible for keeping Child from seeing them and that Father is aliar. Paternal
Grandmother's denials of these allegations lack credibility and further demonstrate arefusal to
accept personal responsibly for her outrageous actions. Paternal Grandmother's conduct does not
reflect aperson who is willing and able to foster and encourage frequent and continuing contact
between Child and Father.
12 Importantly, Paternal Grandfather previously testified that Paternal Grandparents only
wanted to maintain primary physical custody of Child until the relationship between Child and her
parents "blossomed" — which, in Paternal Grandfather's mind, would occur around the time Child
turned 10 or 11 years old. See 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at pp. 23-24. Child was nine years old
when Paternal Grandparents filed the original Petition for Modification of Custody. Child was
just shy of 10 years old when Paternal Grandparents filed their Amended Petition for Modification
of Custody. Child was 10 years old by the November 23, 2021, hearing. Child's relationships
with Father and Mother have blossomed; Child enjoys the current custody order and does not seek
additional time with Paternal Grandparents. This Court previously found Paternal Grandfather's
stated desire to be both unrealistic and counterintuitive. See 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at p. 24.
Now, it is clear that Paternal Grandfather's alleged desire was false, too. Through their clear lack
of candor and credibility, Paternal Grandparents demonstrated they will say and do anything if
they think it will help them get what they want in that moment.
This factor is highly significant, weighs substantially against Paternal Grandparents, and
weighs favorably for both Father and Mother.
2. The present and past abuse committed by aparty 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
No party offered any new evidence regarding this factor. As such, this Court's analysis
remains substantively unchanged, with the caveat that the events supporting the prior analysis were
deemed to be remote then, and are even more remote now. See generally 2020 CUSTODY OPINION,
at pp. 25-27. To the extent this factor previously weighed slightly against Father, it receives even
less weight now than it did nearly two years ago.
2.I.The information set forth in Section 5329.1(a) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services).
No party offered any credible evidence regarding child abuse and/or involvement with
child protective services. In summary testimony, Paternal Grandparents' counsel alleged that
Child "is being scratched in her face" and suggested that Child may not be safe in Father's care.
Like the bulk of Paternal Grandparents' testimony, this allegation lacked credibility, to the extent 13 of being apure fabrication. When this Court interviewed Child in camera via video-conference,
Child had no scratches, scars, or any other suspicious marks on her face. She did not testify
regarding any injuries received in Father's care. Mother also credibly testified that she saw Child
(presumably via video communication) without visible injuries when speaking to her afew days
before the hearing. This sub-factor is not relevant.
3. The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child
Generally, the parties presented minimal new evidence regarding this factor, but the Court
can make several reasonable inferences. In the 2020 Custody Opinion, this factor heavily favored
Paternal Grandparents because Father and Mother delegated many parental responsibilities to
Paternal Grandparents when Child was an infant; when Child was born, Father and Mother were
relatively young as well. See 2020 CUSTODY ORDER, at pp. 28-29. However, nearly two years
have passed since that order was issued.
Since then, Father has exercised primary physical custody; Mother has exercised partial
physical custody, primarily during the summer and on holidays; and Paternal Grandparents have
had limited periods of partial physical custody during Child's summer vacation and near the
holidays. Mother and Father have shared legal custody; Paternal Grandparents do not have legal
custody. While no one can diminish Paternal Grandparents' actions to help raise Child from her
birth through July 2019, for the past 2'/2 years, Child has primarily lived with Father. Child's successes and failures during this time are naturally areflection of the environment Father fosters
in his household. Similarly, for nearly two years, Mother and Father have overseen all legal
custody matters pertaining to Child ( e.g., medical appointments and care, nutrition, education,
etc.). There was no evidence that Child is ill, malnourished, having difficulty in school, or ailing
in any other manner.
This Court interviewed Child via Zoom videoconference technology. Child was in her
bedroom, which appeared to be clean and orderly. Similarly, Child's appearance reflected good
hygiene. Graciously, Child afforded this Court the pleasantry of viewing her pet bearded dragon,
"Medusa." Child indicated that she does very well in school despite abad test or two in social
studies. Additionally, Child recently tested to enter aprogram for gifted students but had not yet
received the results. Paternal Grandparents alleged that Child was doing poorly in school, which
14 Mother refuted. Mother's testimony in this regard was noteworthy, as she spoke pointedly and
with conviction. By all accounts, Child appears to be doing very well academically. This Court
can infer that Child's academic success is fostered, not hindered, by living in Father's household.
By the tidy appearance of Child's room, this Court can also infer that Father's household fosters
an admirable level of structure and organization. It is also apparent that Mother endeavors to
remain apprised of Child's academic performance.
At least between Father and Paternal Grandparents, this factor is largely neutral at this juncture.
4. The needfor stability and continuity in the child's education, family life, and community life.
Child has lived with Father for 2'/2 years. She is happy, perceivably healthy, developing
typical sibling relationships with her half-siblings (discussed further under the sixth custody
factor), has friends who live close by, and is succeeding academically. There is no evidence that
Father's military transfer from North Carolina to South Carolina adversely affected Child's best
interests. There is no evidence that possible future military transfers may harm Child's best
interests. (Indeed, Child appears to have adapted quite well to life in South Carolina). There is no
credible evidence that Child suffers in any way under Father's primary physical custody. There is
no credible evidence that Child wants or needs more time with Paternal Grandparents.
Rather, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Paternal Grandmother disrupts the stability
and harmony in Child's life by discussing custody issues and disparaging Father, Mother, and
Stepmother in front of Child — all of which upset Child. Paternal Grandparents' actions also harm
the quality of life Child experiences in Father's household. By sending an extravagant number of
Christmas gifts to Child, while ignoring their other grandchildren (her half-siblings), Paternal
Grandparents sow the seeds of discord and resentment between the siblings. The 2020 display
was so outrageous that even Child felt bad for her brothers. In short, Paternal Grandparents' actions are cruel.
Paternal Grandparents' behaviors harm not only Child and her half-siblings, but Father and
Stepmother as well. No loving parent could avoid the heartache (or headache) of such alopsided
affair. Furthermore, Father and Stepmother are left with the obvious aftermath — resolving the 15 situation fairly and soothing hurt feelings. While Paternal Grandparents have no obligation to send anyone gifts, their overall pattern of conduct demonstrates that their actions are intentional and
planned. Father has repeatedly cautioned Paternal Grandparents that bestowing lavish gifts on
Child while ignoring her siblings is hurtful to his family — to no avail. Paternal Grandparents know
their behavior is inappropriate and hurtful, yet they fail or refuse to adapt to Child's wishes or her
best interests. This shows the willful purpose of their actions.
As outlined in the discussion of Factor No. 1, above, Paternal Grandfather previously testified that Paternal Grandparents hoped to retain primary physical custody of Child until her
relationship with Father or Mother blossomed. By all accounts, Child's relationship with Father has blossomed. (Child also clearly enjoys her time with Mother and expressed substantial
excitement about spending Christmas break with her.) Returning Child to Paternal Grandparents'
primary physical custody at this juncture would disregard Paternal Grandfather's previously
expressed intent. It would destroy the stability that has been established since Child entered into
Father's primary physical care, and it would harm the relationship between Child and her parents.
The record is replete with evidence regarding Paternal Grandmother's disparagement of Father, Stepmother, and Mother.
It is also clear that Paternal Grandparents will say anything, regardless of its truth, and take
any action, no matter how outrageous, if they believe it will aid them in what can be fairly described as aharassment campaign against both Child and Father in their pursuit to regain primary
physical custody. This factor favors Father.
S. The availability of extendedfamily.
The parties presented minimal new evidence. See generally 2020 CUSTODY OPINION, at p.
29. However, Paternal Aunt now apparently resides in North Carolina. This factor remains of
minimal significance and continues not to favor any party.
6. The child's sibling relationships.
Child has two half-brothers in Father's household and one half-sister who lives with
Mother. Although the parties provided limited new evidence, it was modestly insightful. By all
appearances, Child has developed typical sibling relationships with her younger half-brothers.
16 Additionally, Child was saddened for her brothers when Paternal Grandparents sent her alarge
number of Christmas gifts but ignored them. Also, Child expressed excitement about seeing her
half-sister when she visits Mother around Christmas. This factor slightly favors Father. To a
lesser extent (because testimony on the relationship was scant), this factor also supports Mother's
position over Paternal Grandparents.
7. The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment.
Child testified with adegree of intelligence and maturity at or above her chronological age
of ten. Child presented herself as ahappy individual — happy living in Father's household and
happily looking forward to spending time with Mother around Christmas. Child loves the house
she lives in, and she has friends who live nearby. Child enjoys the current custody schedule and
does not want to spend additional time with Paternal Grandparents. Child has made Paternal
Grandmother aware — through both words and actions — that she enjoys living with Father and does
not like Paternal Grandmother disparaging her parents or Stepmother. In summary testimony,
Paternal Grandparents' counsel alleged that Child "wishes she had more time with them." N.T.
(Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 21. This allegation is not supported by Child's testimony. Despite her
testimony to the contrary, Paternal Grandmother knows that any statements such as this are
extracted through Paternal Grandmother's repeated harassment and badgering of Child.
Child acknowledged that Paternal Grandmother made her cry during at least one incident. With the passage of time, Child has somewhat forgiven Paternal Grandmother but has not forgiven
her completely. Child's time with Paternal Grandparents can be fun, akin to avacation. See, e.g.,
I NTERVENORS' Ex. 3. Still, Child becornes upset when Paternal Grandparents speak ill of Father
or Mother. Unfortunately, Child does not know how to make Paternal Grandmother stop
disparaging her parents because Paternal Grandmother has behaved this way for asignificant
period of time.
This factor generally favors maintaining the current schedule. However, this factor also
supports an adjustment that would safeguard against Paternal Grandparents' continued disrespect
of Father, Step-Mother, Mother, and Child.
17 8. The attempts of aparent 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.
Paternal Grandmother repeatedly attempts to turn Child against Father and Mother.
Paternal Grandparents both testified and otherwise affirmed summary testimony that they do not
discuss custody issues with Child and that Paternal Grandfather has not intervened to stop Paternal
Grandmother from discussing custody issues with Child. This testimony lacked credibility.
In contrast, Child testified credibly that she tells Paternal Grandmother to stop discussing
custody issues and disparaging her parents. Paternal Grandmother refuses to refrain from these
actions. Paternal Grandmother has upset Child to the point of tears. Paternal Grandfather
intervened on at least one occasion to stop Paternal Grandmother from harassing Child. Paternal
Grandmother tells Child that Father and Stepmother "lie" and that they are "tile bad guys."
Paternal Grandmother repeatedly asks Child if she wants to live with Paternal Grandparents; Child
will eventually capitulate when Paternal Grandmother "bugs" her enough. Child credibly testified
that Paternal Grandmother knows Child wants to live with Father and Stepmother and that she has
made this clear to Paternal Grandmother.
Paternal Grandmother discussed custody issues with Child around the Thanksgiving 2020
holiday. Paternal Grandmother also showed Child texts between the adults regarding custody
issues. Occasionally, Child does not want to talk to Paternal Grandparents, generally after Paternal
Grandmother upsets Child by disparaging Father or Stepmother. Paternal Grandmother also disparages Mother.
Father encourages Child to talk to Paternal Grandparents. Mother does not speak ill of
Paternal Grandparents in Child's presence.
This factor heavily favors Father and Mother. In light of the numerous, flagrant, willful,
outrageous, and ongoing actions taken by Paternal Grandmother, this factor must be afforded substantial weight.
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.
18 Father and Mother are more likely to maintain aloving, stable, consistent, and nurturing
relationship with Child. Paternal Grandmother disrespects Child's wishes by continuing to discuss
custody issues with her. Paternal Grandmother continues to disparage Child's parents and
Stepmother despite Child's protests. While this Court finds that Paternal Grandmother loves Child
in her own way, it is clear Paternal Grandmother does not love Child enough to respect Child's
well-reasoned preferences and desires. Paternal Grandparents have willfully put Child in an
embarrassing situation that could disturb the harmony in Father's household ( i.e., the Christmas
gift incidents). Paternal Grandmother has allowed the deep scorn she harbors for Father to poison
the love she has for Child. This is tragic and heartbreaking. Ultimately, only Paternal
Grandparents can rectify this issue. They must endeavor to make good faith strides in repairing
the damage they have caused and accept responsibility for their actions, lest they poison the
relationship(s) permanently.
This factor weighs in favor of Father and Mother.
10. Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental,
educational, and special needs of the child
Father and Mother are both more likely to attend to the daily emotional, developmental,
and special needs of Child. Father and Mother have shared legal custody and the majority of
physical custodial time. Child is flourishing socially, emotionally, and academically. Mother
keeps apprised of Child's academic standing and other needs. By all accounts, Child is thriving
under the guidance of Father and Mother.
Paternal Grandmother's conduct demonstrates a substantial lack of emotional maturity.
Paternal Grandfather has, in all but one established instance, largely remained apassive bystander
to Paternal Grandmother's disturbing conduct and general harassment of Child. The development
of emotional maturity is essential for all people; and children who develop emotional maturity will
be more prepared to deal with difficult life events, both as teenagers and adults. Paternal
Grandmother cannot foster the development of askill she so greatly lacks. Children must also
learn the importance of civility and respect. Child cannot learn this from Paternal Grandmother
either. Paternal Grandfather has not demonstrated aconsistent willingness to defend Child or to
promote these skills. To the extent Child may need special assistance navigating a healthy
19 relationship with Paternal Grandparents, Paternal Grandparents are clearly unable to aid Child in this regard.
No party is particularly more likely to attend to Child's daily physical needs.
H. The proximity of the residences of the parties.
Father lives in South Carolina; Mother resides in Indiana; and Paternal Grandparents live
in Pennsylvania. Paternal Grandparents suggest that Father's military transfer from North Carolina
to South Carolina makes it increasingly difficult for them to exercise their limited custodial time.
N.T. (Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 22. This is essentially an attempt to relitigate established matters. This
Court has already determined, and the decision was not appealed, that Father's military transfer
was not arelocation (and did not significantly impair Paternal Grandparents' custody rights). See
generally OPINION AND ORDER DATED AUG. 30, 2021, FILED AUG. 31, 2021. This factor does not favor any party.
12. Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
The parties presented no meaningful or credible new evidence on this issue. This factor does not favor any party.
13. The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and availability of the parties
to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect the children from abuse by
another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.
As noted under Factor No. 1, Father and Mother demonstrated an ability to cooperate and
to make reasonable accommodations regarding the custody schedule. They have developed a
strong co-parenting relationship and mutually discuss issues pertaining to Child. Mother and
Stepmother are also very cooperative, and Child describes them as best friends. There is alow
level of conflict and ahigh level of cooperation, civility, and respect between Father and Mother.
Conversely, there is substantial conflict between Paternal Grandparents and Father, and —
to alesser, but not insignificant — extent, between Paternal Grandparents and Mother. This conflict
20 is nearly exclusively created by Paternal Grandparents, especially Paternal Grandmother. Paternal
Grandparents do not respect Father and have openly disparaged him in front of Child.
In summary testimony, Paternal Grandparents' attorney stated that Father "raises the level
of conflict by continuing to try to take away my clients' custody time." N.T. ( Nov. 23, 2021), at
p. 22 ( emphasis added). First, this Court previously determined that it was in Child's best interests
for Father to have primary physical custody. See generally 2020 CUSTODY OPINION. The Superior
Court affirmed that decision. At its core, Paternal Grandparents' position is that Father initially
raised the conflict between them because he litigated for custody. This reflects poorly on Paternal
Grandparents' emotional maturity and suggests that their true interests in this custody modification
are self-serving. To the extent Father currently seeks to limit Paternal Grandparents to supervised
physical custody, Father seeks this relief not out of malice, but — again — out of the Child's best
interests to protect her from Paternal Grandmother's outrageous behavior. To the extent Paternal
Grandparents bemoan that Father consented to only four hours of custody time for Thanksgiving
2021, whereas they received five hours the year prior, and whereas the custody order affords them
up to eight hours around the holidays if consented to by all parties, Paternal Grandparents should
consider themselves fortunate to receive any time in light of Paternal Grandmother's egregious
behavior. There is no credible evidence that Father does not cooperate with Paternal Grandparents
or honor his cormnitments.
As discussed throughout this Opinion, Paternal Grandmother's actions have been
outrageous and harmful to Child. It is particularly Paternal Grandmother who has raised the level
of conflict between the parties. As noted under Factor No. 10, Paternal Grandmother's refusal to
take responsibility for her actions also reflects poorly on her emotional maturity and general fitness to care for Child.
Father believes that Paternal Grandmother simply wants to "win" and is primarily driven
by adesire to exert control over both Child and Father, rather than being guided by agenuine
pursuit of Child's best interests. N.T. ( Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 8. Father's conclusion is supported
by the evidence. Paternal Grandmother demonstrated by her conduct that she is, indeed, primarily
driven by her own interests and desires, not the best interests of Child.
21 It is abundantly clear that Paternal Grandparents will say and do anything — no matter how
false, baseless, or disingenuous — in their attempts to garner additional custody time with Child.
By way of example, this Court incorporates its discussion above regarding the October 18, 2021,
Petition and the October 20, 2021, Petition. Paternal Grandparents' baseless accusations and frivolous litigation increase the level of conflict.
This factor favors Father.
14. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of aparty or member of the party's household
None of the parties have ahistory of drug or alcohol abuse. This factor is not relevant to the custody detennination.
15. The mental and physical condition of aparty or member of aparty's household
In summary testimony, Father's counsel suggested that Paternal Grandmother may have
mental health issues based on her outrageous behavior, and that she should undergo amental health
evaluation. Father, through his counsel, acknowledged that he could not make such adiagnosis
himself Paternal Grandmother found this idea to be laughable and, perhaps mockingly, agreed to
undergo a mental health evaluation. This Court has discussed at length the negative impact
Paternal Grandmother's outrageous actions have had on Child. There is no factual basis ( i.e.,
professional diagnosis) at this time for those actions to be characterized as resulting from amental health issue.
There is presently no new evidence that any party (or anyone in aparty's household) has any new mental or physical conditions. This factor does not favor any party.
16. Any other relevant factor.
Some of the testimony presented in this hearing touched upon matters that were previously
addressed in proceedings on the Cross-Contempt Petitions. As noted in the Procedural History
above, this Court determined that Paternal Grandparents were not in contempt of the custody order
despite engaging in "shocking" behavior. After receiving credible testimony from Child in this
proceeding (who did not testify in the Cross-Contempt proceedings), this Court is satisfied that
some of these issues have now been established by apreponderance of the evidence. Paternal
Grandparent's observation that they were not found in contempt previously has little, if any,
22 bearing on this proceeding. See generally N.T. ( Nov. 23, 2021), at p. 27. The November 23,
2021, hearing was the parties' opportunity to present their respective cases on the modification
issue. At any rate, non-contemptuous conduct can still negatively impact achild's best interests.
Of further note, between Father and Mother, there is no presumption that primary physical
custody should be awarded to either party. 23 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5327(a). However, both
Father and Mother receive apresumption over Paternal Grandparents in this regard:
(b) Between aparent and third party.--In any action regarding the custody of the child between aparent of the child and anonparent, there shall be apresumption 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. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5327(b). Not only have Paternal Grandparents failed to rebut the
presumption in favor of Father (and Mother), but moreover, Paternal Grandparents' position has
either weakened or (at best) remained unchanged for every child custody factor under the present
analysis compared to the 2020 Custody Opinion. This is not acase where Paternal Grandparents
merely sought additional partial physical custody, but a case where they requested primary
physical custody and shared legal custody. See generally PETITION FOR M ODIFICATION; AMENDED
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION. Paternal Grandparents failed to produce anv ( new) meaningful and
credible evidence that would favorably impact any of the custody factors. Functionally, the latest
chapter in this saga of litigation has been nothing more than an attempt by Paternal Grandparents to relitigate prior chapters.
CONCLUSION
It is abundantly clear that Child's best interests require Paternal Grandparents to have only
supervised physical custody until they can demonstrate an ability to interact with Father, Mother,
and Child in arespectful and appropriate manner. Paternal Grandmother's general harassment and
badgering of Child, as well as her blatant disregard for Child's well-reasoned preferences, cannot continue unabated.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT ENTERS THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
23 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION
Defendant, 0
************** APPEARANCES:
For Defendant: SELF- REPRESENTED
For Intervenors: LAUREN DARBOUZE, ESQUIRE ANDREW SHESKO, ESQUIRE
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt and Special Relief, filed December 9, 2020, as
consolidated and integrated into the custody modification proceedings is GRANTED IN PART as to special relief.
2. Intervenors' Petition for Special Relief, filed October 18, 2021, is WITHDRAWN.
3. Intervenors' Amended Petition for Special Relief, filed October 20, 2021, is DISMISSED
AS MOOT. 4. Intervenors shall pay counsel fees of $ 864.75 to Plaintiff's counsel, Randi J. Silverman, within 60 days.
a. This award of counsel fees is entered without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 10
days to submit asupplemental invoice (with service upon all parties) for counsel
fees incurred for hearing on November 23, 2021.
b. If Plaintiff submits a supplemental invoice as contemplated in Paragraph 4(a),
Intervenors shall raise any objections to the supplemental invoice within 10 days of receipt.
BY THE COURT:
l•.NiGIR .bt • Clrn,Gn-•
Linda Rovder Fleming, Judge
2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION
Defendant,
For Intervenors: LAUREN DARBOUZE, ESQUIRE ANDREW SHESKO, ESQUIRE
AND NOW, this 9'" day of February, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED
that the following custody schedule is in the best interest of the child:
1. LEGAL CUSTODY. Plaintiff, Trenten Boback ["Father"], and Defendant, Christina
M. Wendell, now Pershing ["Mother"], shall have shared legal custody of the minor
child, namely, J.M.B. (aten-year-old female born in November 2011). a. Legal decisions: All decisions affecting the child's growth and development
including, but not limited to, medical and dental treatment; education; religion;
summer camp; ages for dating and driving; athletic pursuits; extracurricular
activities; and choice of daycare provider/babysitters shall be considered major
decisions and shall be made by the parents jointly, after discussion and
consultation with each other and with aview towards obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interests.
b. Coronavirus: Coronavirus- related issues shall be decided by the parents
jointly. This includes, but is not limited to, issues regarding whether the
child should be vaccinated, travel to high COVID-19 areas, self-quarantine,
be tested, receive medical treatment, wear amask, attend social gatherings,
have contact with persons who may have been exposed to the virus, etc.
Shared legal custody also includes all decisions related to the child's
education, including choice of the educational delivery system (in-person, virtual, or hybrid) and other learning options.
C. Access to records. The parents shall have equal access to all pertinent records
pertaining to the minor child, such as, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious and/or school records. Each parent shall be entitled to complete and
full information from any physician, dentist, clergy, teacher or authority and
have copies of any reports given to them as aparent. Such documents include,
but are not limited to, medical reports, dental reports, religious reports/records,
academic and school report cards, birth certificates, etc. Both parents may and are encouraged to attend school conferences and activities. The names of both
parents shall be listed with the school as the individuals to be contacted in the event of an emergency and to be notified regarding school events.
d. Exchange of information. Each parent agrees to keep the other informed of the
progress of the child's educational and social adjustments. Each parent shall
notify the other parent in advance of any planned teacher conferences, which
2 both parents have the right to attend. Each parent shall notify the other parent in
advance of any school open houses, performances, athletic events, or other
significant extracurricular events involving the child. Each parent agrees not to
impair the other party's right to shared legal custody of the child.
e. Notification: Each parent shall have the duty to notify the other parent of any
event or activity that could reasonably be expected to be of significant concern to the other parent.
f. Illness: In the event of any serious illness of the minor child at any time, any
party then having custody of said child shall immediately communicate with the
other parties by telephone or any other means, informing the other party of the
nature of the illness. During such illness, each party shall have the right to visit
the child as often as he or she desires, consistent with the proper medical care of
the child. The word " illness" as used herein shall mean any disability which
confines the child to be under the direction of alicensed physician for aperiod of in excess of forty-eight (48) hours.
9. Scheduling of activities. Neither parent shall schedule activities or
appointments for the child that would require the child's attendance or
participation at said activity or appointment during a time when the child is
scheduled to be in the custody of the other parent without the other parent's
express prior approval.
h. Communication. The parents shall communicate directly with one another
concerning any parenting issue requiring consultation and agreement and
regarding any proposed modifications to the custody schedule, which may from
time to time become necessary. Neither parent shall discuss with the child any
proposed changes to the custody schedule prior to discussing the matter and reaching an agreement with the other parent.
3 2. PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child.
3. SUMMER SCHEDULE. The parties may work together to determine a mutually
acceptable summer schedule. In the absence of awritten agreement to the contrary, the following summer schedule shall apply:
a. Commencing on the Sunday following the conclusion of the school year, Mother
shall have custody of the child until Fourth of July week, when Intervenor,
Jeffrey R. Boback ["Paternal Grandfather"], is off from work.
b. Paternal Grandfather and Intervenor, Michele L. Boback ["Paternal
Grandmother"; collectively, "Paternal Grandparents"], shall have, at the
reasonable discretion of Father and Mother, supervised partial physical custody
for up to ten ( 10) hours per day for as many as seven consecutive days,
beginning on the first day of Fourth of July week. The parties shall work
together to mutually determine whether the periods of supervised physical
custody, if any, shall occur in Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or another
reasonable location. Paternal Grandparents' physical custody shall be
supervised by Father, Mother, or any competent adult(s) mutually designated by Father and Mother.
C. Father and Mother shall share physical custody from the first day of Paternal
Grandparents' potential summer supervised physical custody until two weeks
prior to the commencement of the following school year, as mutually agreed.
d. Father and Mother shall accommodate the other parent's efforts to schedule family vacations during the summer.
4. TRANSPORTATION. Father and Mother shall work together to determine mutually
acceptable transportation arrangements. In the absence of awritten agreement to the
contrary, Father and Mother shall meet at an agreed location when they exchange
custody.
4 5. HOLIDAYS.
a. Father and Mother shall share or alternate holidays by mutual agreement, taking
into consideration the length of time the child is off from school.
b. Paternal Grandparents shall have, at the reasonable discretion of Father and
Mother, supervised partial physical custody of the child for up to eight (8) hours
near major holidays, at times and locations to be mutually agreed upon between Father, Mother, and Paternal Grandparents.
C. Paternal Grandparents shall have, at the reasonable discretion of Father and
Mother, up to four (4) hours of supervised partial physical custody at any time
Father or Mother is visiting Cambria County.
6. DEPLOYMENT. In the event Father is deployed or is required to be in the field
during the school year, the child shall remain in the care of Father's wife, Justine
Boback. The parties will follow the summer schedule if Father is deployed or in the field during the summer.
7. FAMILY FUNERALS, WEDDINGS, AND REUNIONS. Father and Mother shall
have custody of the minor child for attendance at family funerals, weddings, and
reunions, provided that reasonable notice is given to the other parties and provided that
the parties arrange for appropriate make-up or compensatory time. Paternal
Grandparents shall have supervised partial physical custody at these events only if
reasonable accommodations for supervision can be arranged.
8. CANCELLATION. Each party shall provide the other with at least twenty-four (24)
hours advance notice, if possible, of their intention to cancel aperiod of custody.
9. NON-DEROGATION CLAUSE. While in the presence of the minor child, no party
shall make any remarks or do anything whatsoever which can in any way be construed
as derogatory or uncomplimentary to the others, and it shall be the duty of all parties to
uphold the others as ones whom the child should love and respect. While in the
5 presence of the minor child, the parties shall prevent third parties from making any
remarks or doing anything whatsoever which can in any way be construed as derogatory or uncomplimentary to the others.
10. SMOKING, DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE. While in the presence of the minor
child, no party shall be under the influence of any alcoholic beverages. No party shall
own, use, possess, or transport illicit drugs or prescription medication not used in
accordance with the party's own physician's directives while having custody of the
child. No party shall smoke or allow others to smoke around the child.
11. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL DURING TRANSPORTATION. No party shall, while
transporting the minor child, operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, medication not administered according to the party's own physician's directives, or illegal drugs.
12. MAIL ACCESS. Father and Mother shall have reasonable mail access, including e-
mail, to the minor child while in the custody of the other parties. All communications
between Paternal Grandparents and the minor child shall be supervised.
13. TELEVISION, MOVIE, MAGAZINE CONTENT. While in their respective care
and supervision, no party shall permit the minor child to be subjected to inappropriate,
excessively violent and/or explicitly sexual material, whether from television programs, movies, or magazines.
14. PROMPTNESS AND DELAYS. It shall be the obligation of each party to make the
child available to the others in accordance with the custody/visitation schedule and to
encourage the child to participate in the plan hereby ordered. The parties shall be
prompt in picking up the minor child at the scheduled times. The parties shall be
prompt in having the minor child ready for pick up at the scheduled times. Each party
shall promptly notify the other party of any travel delays which might affect the custodial arrangements.
6 15. TELEPHONE CONTACT. The noncustodial party shall be permitted to telephone
the child each day at a reasonable hour. The custodial party shall ensure that the
noncustodial party is afforded adequate time to speak with the child. The calls may be
monitored. The parties shall provide one another with the current telephone number of
the child (if any) and of each other. If the child is not present at the time the telephone
call is placed, amessage shall be left and the custodial party shall have the child return
the call as soon as possible. The parties shall use their best discretion as to the time, frequency, and duration of the calls.
16. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS. During all times they are transporting the
minor child, the parties shall use appropriate seat belts, child car seats, etc., to snake
sure the minor child is being transported in asafe and legal manner.
17. EXECUTION. All parties, including adult members of the respective households,
shall use their best efforts to ensure that they, their extended families and household members cooperate in carrying out the intent and spirit of this Order.
18. RELOCATION BY ORDER OF COURT. A party proposing to change the
residence of achild which significantly impairs the ability of anon-relocating party to
exercise custodial rights shall follow the procedures required by 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5337
and Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.17.
19. JURISDICTION. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until further Order
of this Court. The Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Pennsylvania, shall
retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case unless and until said Court shall
relinquish said jurisdiction.
Linda Rovder Fleming, J.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Boback, T. v. Pershing, C. v. Boback, M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boback-t-v-pershing-c-v-boback-m-pasuperct-2022.