J-A18031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
LOUIS HAYES : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ALANA SANTORO : No. 98 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered January 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at FD 14-001546-017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: September 5, 2024
Louis Hayes (Father) appeals from the order denying his petition seeking
primary custody of the daughter (Child) he shares with Alana Santoro
(Mother). We affirm.
Child was born in June 2012. Prior to this action, the parties shared
legal and physical custody of Child, “with physical custody following a 4-3-3-
4 shared custody schedule.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/24, at 3. The
trial court “found it … noteworthy that the parties live within proximity to each
other — no more than 15-minutes of driving time.” Id. at 4. Father lives with
his fiancé and their young child. N.T., 7/31/23, at 130. Mother lives with her
husband and their young child, as well as Mother’s 17-year-old daughter. Id.
at 416, 419.
On March 31, 2022, Father petitioned for primary physical custody of
Child and sole legal custody for matters involving Child’s education. The J-A18031-24
parties participated in court-ordered evaluations and appeared before the trial
court for a conciliation on February 27, 2023. The trial court subsequently
scheduled the matter for a two-day trial on July 20-21, 2023. Order, 3/1/23,
at 1. In addition, the court ordered the parties to “resume Co-Parenting
Therapy with the same therapist who had provided the therapy in the past.
This should resume as soon as possible, since it is the [c]ourt’s reasoned
opinion that such services are very much needed and required.” Id.
The trial court held the trial as scheduled on July 20-21, 2023. By order
entered January 2, 2024, the trial court denied Father’s petition. The order
included the following directives:
As per prior Order, the parties are mandated to attend co- parenting therapy.
The parties shall continue to share physical custody on a 4-3-3-4 custody schedule with the status quo of that schedule continuing. The parties shall continue to follow the provisions of the April 7, 2021 Consent Order, particularly as to [Father’s] “right of first refusal.”
The parties shall continue to share legal custody.
This [c]ourt is not entering a more detailed parenting plan at this juncture because of a lack of information from the parties on what details should or should not [be] included in such a plan. Should the parties wish to have more specificity, the [c]ourt will entertain proposals in conformance with the [c]ourt’s Memorandum Opinion. However, the [c]ourt’s preference would be for the parties to attempt to first reach a consensus, and then to address any disagreements in co-parenting therapy.
Order, 1/2/24, at 1.
Father timely appealed on January 17, 2024. See Wagner v. Wagner,
887 A.2d 282, 285 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[A] custody order that anticipates
-2- J-A18031-24
future hearings that could take place on application of one of the parties is a
final, appealable order.”) (emphasis and citation omitted). With his appeal,
Father filed a concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
The trial court filed an opinion stating:
[The trial court] concluded, following two (2) days of trial, that it was in the best interest of [C]hild to continue to spend equal custody time with Mother [and that] Mother remain[] involved in [Child’s] schooling. [The trial court] predicated [the] decision, in part, upon a judicial interview with the Child and her older sister, [], as well as consideration of the testimony of twelve other witnesses.
TCO at 2.
Father presents the following eight questions for review:
I. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the facts presented by expert and law [sic] witnesses to the custody factors[?]
II. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to which parent was more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the Child in determining this factor as neutral[?]
III. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to which parent was more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the Child adequate to the Child’s emotional needs in determining this factor as neutral[?]
IV. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another in determining this factor as neutral[?]
-3- J-A18031-24
V. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law in determining that the Child’s life would not be enhanced by allowing Father to have primary custody[?]
VI. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the history of drug and alcohol abuse of a party or member of the party’s household in determining this factor as neutral[?]
VII. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the report and testimony of Dr. Chambers[,] the court appointed expert[,] recommending primary physical custody to Father[?]
VIII. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the witness testimony in determining the testimony as neutral and against the weight of the evidence presented[?]
Father’s Brief at 5-7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Legal Authority
In reviewing a custody order, “our scope is of the broadest type and our
standard is abuse of discretion.” White v. Malecki, 296 A.3d 1210, 1213
(Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). We have explained:
This [C]ourt 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.[ v. S.A.R.], 96 A.3d [396,] 400 [(Pa. Super. 2014)]. 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).
-4- J-A18031-24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A18031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
LOUIS HAYES : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ALANA SANTORO : No. 98 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered January 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at FD 14-001546-017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: September 5, 2024
Louis Hayes (Father) appeals from the order denying his petition seeking
primary custody of the daughter (Child) he shares with Alana Santoro
(Mother). We affirm.
Child was born in June 2012. Prior to this action, the parties shared
legal and physical custody of Child, “with physical custody following a 4-3-3-
4 shared custody schedule.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/24, at 3. The
trial court “found it … noteworthy that the parties live within proximity to each
other — no more than 15-minutes of driving time.” Id. at 4. Father lives with
his fiancé and their young child. N.T., 7/31/23, at 130. Mother lives with her
husband and their young child, as well as Mother’s 17-year-old daughter. Id.
at 416, 419.
On March 31, 2022, Father petitioned for primary physical custody of
Child and sole legal custody for matters involving Child’s education. The J-A18031-24
parties participated in court-ordered evaluations and appeared before the trial
court for a conciliation on February 27, 2023. The trial court subsequently
scheduled the matter for a two-day trial on July 20-21, 2023. Order, 3/1/23,
at 1. In addition, the court ordered the parties to “resume Co-Parenting
Therapy with the same therapist who had provided the therapy in the past.
This should resume as soon as possible, since it is the [c]ourt’s reasoned
opinion that such services are very much needed and required.” Id.
The trial court held the trial as scheduled on July 20-21, 2023. By order
entered January 2, 2024, the trial court denied Father’s petition. The order
included the following directives:
As per prior Order, the parties are mandated to attend co- parenting therapy.
The parties shall continue to share physical custody on a 4-3-3-4 custody schedule with the status quo of that schedule continuing. The parties shall continue to follow the provisions of the April 7, 2021 Consent Order, particularly as to [Father’s] “right of first refusal.”
The parties shall continue to share legal custody.
This [c]ourt is not entering a more detailed parenting plan at this juncture because of a lack of information from the parties on what details should or should not [be] included in such a plan. Should the parties wish to have more specificity, the [c]ourt will entertain proposals in conformance with the [c]ourt’s Memorandum Opinion. However, the [c]ourt’s preference would be for the parties to attempt to first reach a consensus, and then to address any disagreements in co-parenting therapy.
Order, 1/2/24, at 1.
Father timely appealed on January 17, 2024. See Wagner v. Wagner,
887 A.2d 282, 285 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[A] custody order that anticipates
-2- J-A18031-24
future hearings that could take place on application of one of the parties is a
final, appealable order.”) (emphasis and citation omitted). With his appeal,
Father filed a concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
The trial court filed an opinion stating:
[The trial court] concluded, following two (2) days of trial, that it was in the best interest of [C]hild to continue to spend equal custody time with Mother [and that] Mother remain[] involved in [Child’s] schooling. [The trial court] predicated [the] decision, in part, upon a judicial interview with the Child and her older sister, [], as well as consideration of the testimony of twelve other witnesses.
TCO at 2.
Father presents the following eight questions for review:
I. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the facts presented by expert and law [sic] witnesses to the custody factors[?]
II. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to which parent was more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the Child in determining this factor as neutral[?]
III. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to which parent was more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the Child adequate to the Child’s emotional needs in determining this factor as neutral[?]
IV. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another in determining this factor as neutral[?]
-3- J-A18031-24
V. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law in determining that the Child’s life would not be enhanced by allowing Father to have primary custody[?]
VI. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the history of drug and alcohol abuse of a party or member of the party’s household in determining this factor as neutral[?]
VII. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the report and testimony of Dr. Chambers[,] the court appointed expert[,] recommending primary physical custody to Father[?]
VIII. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to give proper weight and consideration to the witness testimony in determining the testimony as neutral and against the weight of the evidence presented[?]
Father’s Brief at 5-7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Legal Authority
In reviewing a custody order, “our scope is of the broadest type and our
standard is abuse of discretion.” White v. Malecki, 296 A.3d 1210, 1213
(Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). We have explained:
This [C]ourt 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.[ v. S.A.R.], 96 A.3d [396,] 400 [(Pa. Super. 2014)]. 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).
-4- J-A18031-24
The Custody Act requires a trial court to consider all of the Section 5328(a) custody factors when “ordering any form of custody,” and further requires the court to give “weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child[.]” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). A trial court must “delineate the reasons for its decision when making an award of custody either on the record or in a written opinion.” S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 401. See also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(a) and (d). However, “there is no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013).
[O]ur paramount concern is the best interests of the child. See Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (explaining that this Court’s “paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” in custody cases is the best interests of the child) (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 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).
Bleam v. Wynne, No. 2618 EDA 2022, unpublished memorandum at 4-6 (Pa.
Super. filed Oct. 25, 2023).1
Father’s issues all relate to the trial court’s consideration and weighing
of the evidence. See TCO at 9 (trial court stating, “In the eight (8) paragraphs
of his 1925(b) Statement, Father alleges [the trial court] failed to properly
weigh and apply the statutory custody factors of 23 Pa.[]C.S. §5328”). Thus,
we reiterate that “[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we
____________________________________________
1 Superior Court non-precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019 may be cited for persuasive value. Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2).
-5- J-A18031-24
defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe
the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” K.T., 118 A.2d at 1159
(citation omitted).
Here, the trial court “found the witnesses relied [upon] by Father to be
biased against Mother.” TCO at 6. The trial court also “found that Father
largely sought to portray only his good qualities as a parent, while negatively
portraying Mother and attempting to negate her real, valuable role in the
Child’s life which furthers the Child’s development and well-being.” Id. at 9.
With respect to Mother, the trial court “found Mother to be credible and willing
to take responsibility for many of the problems identified by Father during
trial.” Id. at 7.
The trial court explained:
Overall, through the course of a two-day trial, I listened to the testimony of more than a dozen witnesses, and I carefully deliberated over all the information that they imparted. I also reviewed each item of evidence presented to me. I allowed both sides largely to present their case without interruption. Everything that I did was to attempt to determine the best interests of [Child], keeping in mind that I was probably not seeing either party “on their best days” and that I was receiving only select information about matters that occurred over many years. Having appropriately weighed and considered the evidence, I did not believe it mandated that I award Father [p]rimary [p]hysical [c]ustody and [s]ole [l]egal [c]ustody for purposes of educational decisions. Though Father disagrees with that conclusion, it was reached largely upon my credibility assessment of the evidence and witnesses before me. I did not make these decisions arbitrarily, capriciously, or out of ill-will or animus toward Father; indeed, I find Father to be an overwhelmingly positive factor in the Child’s life, but not such that it supports removing the Child from Mother.
-6- J-A18031-24
Id. at 8-9.
Our review of Father’s issues and arguments provides no basis for
disturbing the trial court’s order. The trial court’s findings are based on
competent evidence contained in the record and its conclusions are not
unreasonable. Upon consideration of the record and law, we adopt the well-
reasoned opinion entered by the Honorable Chelsa Wagner of the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County on March 27, 2024. Judge Wagner’s
opinion properly disposes of Appellant’s issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
order denying Father’s petition to modify custody.
Order affirmed.
9/5/2024
-7- Circulated 08/20/2024 10:51 AM