Cain, B. v. Cain, B.

Opinion

J-A15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

BRYAN CAIN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BILLIE CAIN : : Appellant : No. 255 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 11, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-FC-002885-03

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: JULY 12, 2024

Billie Cain (“Mother”) appeals pro se from the January 11, 20241 order

entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas that denied Mother’s

petition to modify custody of C.C. (“Child”) without a hearing. Upon review,

we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court has authored a

comprehensive and accurate procedural and factual history, which we adopt

for purposes of this appeal. Trial Ct. Op., 3/8/24, at 1-8. In sum, from 2017

until 2020 the York County Office of Children and Youth (“the Agency”)

received numerous reports regarding Mother’s unstable health and inability to

care for Child. More recently, in February and June of 2020, the Agency ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The order is dated January 10, 2024, but the clerk did not record notice of

entry of the order on the docket until January 11, 2024. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b). J-A15003-24

received reports that Mother and Child had worms in their bodies and coming

out of their orifices and Mother made Child undergo numerous medical tests

and procedures to rid Child of the worms. There is no medical documentation

that Child ever had worms. The Agency continued to implement safety plans

and offer Mother mental health services, which she refused. On October 14,

2020, the Agency received a report that Mother had contacted the

Northeastern Regional Police Department sixteen times during the 2020

calendar year to make false reports of intruders in her home, bombs in her

backyard, neighbors placing fireworks under the hood of her car, and various

other reasons. On October 22, 2020, the Agency obtained emergency custody

of Child and filed a dependency petition.

On December 11, 2020, Child’s father Bryan Cain (“Father”) filed a

complaint for custody of Child. On December 15, 2020, the dependency court

found that Child was not a dependent child because Father was ready, willing,

and able to care for Child, awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of

Child, and dismissed the dependency petition. On January 22, 2021, the

custody court awarded Father sole legal and primary physical custody of Child.

The court awarded Mother supervised physical custody of Child several times

a week.

On August 25, 2021, Father filed a Petition for Special Relief alleging

that Mother was exhibiting unstable and potentially harmful behavior while

Child was in her care. On May 11, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court

awarded Mother supervised physical custody one weekend per month and

-2- J-A15003-24

granted Father the power to cancel the visit if Mother exhibited concerning

behavior. The court also found that Mother’s past behavior of having

“emotional meltdowns” and taking Child “to doctors several times about

alleged parasites and so forth that didn’t exist” constituted “medical abuse”

and urged Mother to engage in more intense mental health treatment. Order,

5/11/22.

In June, July, and August of 2023 Mother filed petitions for contempt

against Father, as well as several addendums to the petitions. On November

1, 2023, after a hearing, the trial court declined to find Father in contempt

and denied all three petitions.

On November 16, 2023, Mother filed a petition to modify custody,

seeking primary physical custody and shared legal custody of Child. In the

petition, Mother averred that Child was “failing” under Father’s care and that

Child repeatedly requested to live with Mother. Petition, 11/16/23, at ¶ 6.

Mother attached a psychological evaluation, in which she had participated, to

the petition. On December 19, 2023, a custody conciliation conference

occurred.

On January 11, 2024, upon reviewing the conciliator’s report as well as

the record, the trial court denied Mother’s petition without a hearing. In the

order, the trial court found that “Mother has not met the burden of proof to

demonstrate that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the

entry of the operative [] May [11], 2022 [order].” Order, 12/19/23. The

order further found that Mother attached “a psychological evaluation, which

-3- J-A15003-24

appears to be self-reporting with no input from [] Father.” Id. The court

instructed, “[i]f Mother wishes the [c]ourt to consider the results of a

psychological evaluation that she undergoes, then the evaluation must be

non-self-reporting and must include input from Father.” Id.

Mother filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that her psychological

evaluation demonstrated “huge positive change” and “was not completely self-

reporting.” Motion, 1/22/24. The trial court denied the motion on February

8, 2024.

Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In her pro se brief, Mother raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its denial of petition to modify without [a] hearing held.

2. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by denying petition to modify.

3. Whether the trial court adequality weighed the applicable information/history.

4. Whether the trial court adequately considered and examined the situation properly.

5. Whether the trial court failed to correctly apply the law.

6. Whether the trial court has shown bias or ill will in its decision making.

Mother’s Br. at 6.

A.

-4- J-A15003-24

This court reviews a custody determination for an abuse of discretion,

and our scope of review is broad. S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa.

Super. 2014). This court will not find an abuse of discretion “merely because

a reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion.” In re K.D.,

144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). This Court must accept the findings of

the trial court that the evidence supports. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 400.

Importantly, “[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer

to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the

proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136,

1159 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). We can interfere only where the

“custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of

record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted). Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party

claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d

1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

“Pennsylvania law provides that the trial court is only empowered to

change an existing custody order if the modification will ‘serve the best

interest of the child.’” Shiflet v. Shiflet, 305 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2023)

(citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a)). Indeed, when reviewing child custody matters,

our “paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” is the best interests

of the child. Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (citation omitted). “The best-interests

standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which

legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and

-5- J-A15003-24

spiritual well-being.” D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566, 572 (Pa. Super. 2016)

(citations omitted). “Common sense dictates that trial courts should strive,

all other things being equal, to assure that a child maintains a healthy

relationship with both of his or her parents, and that the parents work together

to raise their child.” S.C.B. v. J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 916 (Pa. Super. 2019).

The trial 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 seventeen factors mandated

by the Custody Act. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). The court must “delineate the

reasons for its decision[.]” Id. at § 5323(d). Finally, in any action regarding

the custody of the child between the parents of the child, there shall be no

presumption that custody should be awarded to a particular parent and no

preference based upon gender. 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5327(a) and 5328(b).

B.

In her first issue, Mother avers that the trial court abused its discretion

when it denied her petition to modify custody without holding a hearing.

Mother’s Br. at 24. Mother argues that once she and Father could not agree

during the conciliation conference, the court should have scheduled a

conference and a hearing. Id. Mother further argues that the trial court failed

to follow the rules of civil procedure when it disposed of her petition without

a hearing. Id. We agree.

-6- J-A15003-24

In actions for custody, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure clearly

provide that “[n]o judgment may be entered by default or on the pleadings.”

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.9. The comments further explain “the best interest of a child

is never a purely legal determination. Rather, a multitude of factual

determinations is required. Thus, the rule provides that there shall be no

judgment entered on the pleadings.” Id. cmt.

Instantly, in denying Mother’s petition to modify without a hearing, the

trial court emphasized that Mother failed to demonstrate a change in

circumstances and relied on misleading documentation to support her petition

to modify. The court opined:

In the order denying claims, the trial court found that there was no change in circumstances insomuch as [Mother] continues to pose a threat of harm to [C]hild. The trial court outlines the manner in which [Mother] can refile, once [she] has complied with securing a valid evaluation or she can otherwise show that she no longer poses a threat of harm. Because the psychological evaluation was self-reporting and based on misinformation, and absent any other indication that [Mother] has addressed her significant mental health issues, the trial court was within its authority to determine that [Mother] still posed the same threat of harm she did when the previous [o]rder was entered, and that further evaluation was necessary before further proceedings can begin.

Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13 (footnote omitted).

It is well-settled that “the essential issue in deciding whether to modify

custody is not whether a petitioner has demonstrated a change of

circumstances.” K.D. v. E.D., 267 A.3d 1215, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Rather, our Supreme Court has held that a petition for modification of custody

-7- J-A15003-24

“requires the court to inquire into the best interest of the child regardless of

whether a ‘substantial’ change in circumstances has been shown.” Karis v.

Karis, 544 A.3d 1328, 1332 (Pa. 1988); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a)

(“Upon petition, a court may modify a custody order to serve the best interest

of the child.”)

When Mother filed a petition to modify custody, the trial court was

tasked with determining whether modification was in the best interest of Child.

To do so, the trial court was required to hold a hearing and make findings.

Here, not only did the trial court employ the wrong legal standard in violation

of Section 5338(a) by focusing on whether Mother demonstrated a change in

circumstances, but the trial court also made a decision on the pleadings—

specifically Mother’s psychological evaluation—without holding a hearing in

violation of Rule 1915.9. Thus, we conclude that the trial court abused its

discretion.

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order denying Mother’s petition

and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether

modifying custody is in Child’s best interest. In light of our disposition, we

decline to address Mother’s remaining issues.

Order vacated. Case remanded with instruction. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judge Beck joins the memorandum.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens notes dissent.

-8- J-A15003-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/12/2024

-9-