J-A29045-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.L.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : R.P.S., JR., : : Appellant : No. 816 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order entered May 4, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, Civil Division, No(s): 2011-1474-Civil
BEFORE: DUBOW, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2016
R.P.S., Jr. (“Father”), appeals from the May 4, 2016 Custody Order
that denied Father’s request for shared custody, which was entered following
Father’s Petition for Modification of the December 5, 2012 Custody Order
that granted J.L.S. (“Mother”) primary physical custody of their daughters,
F., born in June 2003, and G., born in June 2002 (collectively, “Children”).
We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the underlying facts, which we
adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 2-
25.
Relevantly, Father and Mother were married in 2002, after living
together for an unspecified period of time. Mother filed a Complaint in
Divorce in September 2011, which included a claim for temporary physical
custody of Children, pending the final hearing. At a Conciliation Conference J-A29045-16
in December 2011, Father and Mother agreed to a temporary physical
custody arrangement. On December 5, 2011, the trial court entered a
Custody Order, granting Mother and Father shared legal custody, and
granting Mother primary physical custody of Children. On October 20, 2014,
Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody, seeking “to expand his
custodial time.” On May 4, 2016, the trial court entered a Custody Order
granting Mother and Father shared legal custody, and granting Mother
primary physical custody of Children. The Custody Order denied Father’s
request for shared physical custody of Children, and modified portions of the
December 5, 2012 Custody Order. Relevant to this appeal, the May 4, 2016
Custody Order provides that Father’s partial physical custody of F. may
begin when F.’s individual therapist indicates that F. is ready.
Father filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Concise Statement.1
On appeal, Father raises the following questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court err in finding that the best interest[s] of [Children] was for Father to have less custodial time than he had in the previous Order?
1 We note that although Father’s Concise Statement identifies six issues for appeal, the Questions Presented section of his brief identifies only three issues, and the wording of those issues differs from the wording used in the Concise Statement. In the Summary of the Argument section of his brief, Father identifies all six issues, and indicates that the six issues “can be consolidated into three areas of error on behalf of the trial court.” Father’s Brief at 4. Because the Argument section of his brief includes a discussion of all six issues identified in his Concise Statement, we will consider Father’s claims on appeal.
-2- J-A29045-16
II. Did the trial court err in applying the sixteen factors set forth in [section] 5328 of the [Child Custody Act (“Act”)2]?
III. Did the trial court err in rendering decisions not supported by the weight of the evidence and findings of record?
Father’s Brief at 2. We will address Father’s issues together.
We review a trial court’s determination in a custody case for an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the evidence. We defer to the trial [court] regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence. The trial [court]’s deductions or inferences from its factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may reject the trial court’s conclusions only if they involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings.
C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506-07 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted). Additionally,
[t]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted).
Father claims that the trial court erred in finding that it is in the best
interests of Children for Father to have less custodial time. Father’s Brief at
5. Father argues that the trial court erred in applying the sixteen factors set
forth in section 5328 of the Act. Id. at 6. Specifically, Father challenges the
2 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321 et seq.
-3- J-A29045-16
trial court’s findings under subsections (4), (6), (7), (10), (14) and (16).
Id.
In regard to subsection (4), Father asserts that the trial court failed to
consider the stability that F. had since 2014, under the terms of the prior
Custody Order. Id. Father also argues that the trial court failed to explain
how the requirement that F.’s therapist indicate when she is ready to
continue with the custody arrangement will promote continuity or stability.
Id. at 6-7.
In regard to subsection (6), Father claims that the trial court “failed to
consider the testimony of the court evaluator, and the parties’ testimony
that the individual therapist of [F.] recommended that [F.] be gradually
eased into spending more time with Father….” Id. at 8. Father contends
that, therefore, the trial court’s decision is against the weight of the
evidence. Id. at 9.
In regard to subsection (7), Father argues that the trial court’s
determination that F. “is not mature enough to make that decision”
(regarding her preference to live with Father half of the time) is against the
weight of the evidence because F.’s therapist and the court evaluator
concluded that F. could be eased into the shared custody arrangement. Id.
In regard to subsection (9), Father asserts that there is no evidence to
support the trial court’s finding that this factor weighs in favor of Mother
-4- J-A29045-16
because “[t]here appears to be cadre of young adults at Father’s house who
like to party while [] Children are around.” Id.
In regard to subsection (10), Father argues that the trial court’s
finding that Mother is more likely to “attend to the daily physical, emotional,
developmental, education and special needs” of Children is against the
weight of the evidence. Id. at 10. Father states that he testified during the
two-day trial that he is not opposed to counseling for Children or himself.
Id. at 10-11.
In regard to subsection (14), Father claims that the trial court’s finding
is against the weight of the evidence, as the trial court found that Father has
an alcohol problem based solely on Mother’s testimony. Id. at 11.
Additionally, Father asserts that G. was concerned about alcohol use by
someone else in Father’s household, rather than by Father. Id. at 12.
In regard to subsection (16), Father contends that the trial court
ignored the court evaluator’s recommendations, and provided no reason for
doing so on the record. Id.
In any custody case decided under the Act, the paramount concern is
the best interests of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328, 5338; see also
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 79 (Pa. Super. 2011). Section 5328(a) provides
as follows:
§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all
-5- J-A29045-16
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) 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, education and special needs of the child.
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
-6- J-A29045-16
(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; see also C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 509-10.
“All of the factors listed in section 5328(a) are required to be
considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v.
J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Moreover,
section 5323(d) mandates that, when the trial court awards custody, it “shall
delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a
written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). The trial court may not
merely rely upon conclusory assertions regarding its consideration of the
section 5328(a) factors in entering an order affecting custody. M.E.V. v.
F.P.W., 100 A.3d 670, 681 (Pa. Super. 2014). However, “[i]n expressing
the reasons for its decision, there is no required amount of detail for the trial
court’s explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are
considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.”
-7- J-A29045-16
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
In its Opinion, the trial court undertook an analysis of the section
5328(a) factors, and concluded that “it is in Children’s best interests to live
primarily with Mother.” See Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 25-33. Father’s
arguments would require this Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence in
Father’s favor. However, “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.” E.D., 33 A.3d at
76; see also C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 506 (stating that “[w]e defer to the trial
[court] regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence.”). Although
Father is not satisfied with the weight that the trial court afforded to many of
the statutory factors in rendering its custody decision, our review of the
record reveal that the trial court’s findings of fact are thoroughly supported
by the record. See C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 506 (stating that this Court cannot
reweigh the evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations so long as
there is evidence to support the findings). Therefore, we conclude that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we defer to its custody decision.
See id.
Order affirmed.
-8- J-A29045-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/19/2016
-9- Circulated 11/30/2016 04:39 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
J-L.S-, Plaintiff
R-P. S-, v.
Defendant No. 2011-1474-CIVIL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
c..-,
-: .: . . I - _-.. . . . ''.; _-:: .:
~~s- ij. /c~:mfll de dt~A_6~. tho D. Record /("
· Brenda C. George,;:,,;:::::::::: Prolhonolary and Clerk of Courts i-.rmstrong County, Pennsylvania
MY COMM. EXPIRES iST MON. JAN. 2020 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ~.RMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
J L. S--- Plaintiff
v. No. 2011-1474-CIVIL
Defendant
MEMORANDUM
PANCHIK, J.
Before the Court for disposition is defendant R-
P. S-'s ("Father's") October 20, 2014 petition for
modification of the December 5, 2012 custody order granting
~ L. S- ("Mother") p.r.i.ma ry physical custody of
F , born June 231 2003r and G
r born June 6, 2002, (collectively the "Children").
Trial began July 20, 2015 with Father's testimony. The
Court then suggested that the parties and Children be evaluated
by a psychologist and a custody report (the "report") prepared
for the Court. The Court continued the trial 120 days for that
purpose. Custody evaluator Martin Meyer, Ph.D., then submitted
a report to the Court. The custody trial resumed and was
completed March 18, 2016. The matter is now ripe for decision.
For the reasons that follow, we will grant Mother primary
physical custody of the Children, and Father partial physical
custody, in accordance with the accompanying order. s v. s ..... No. 2011-1411-Civil
FACTS
After reviewing the record, the Court makes the
following findings of fact. -~.. s- Mother and Father lived together for an unspecified
period of time prior to marriage. They married in 2002,
separated in 2011 and were divorced in 2013.
Father and Mother live a three-to-five minute drive
from one other.
Father, 43, live.s with his paramour, W- S
and W-' s two adult children, DIIII, 20, and AIII 19. 1 They
have lived together in a house in Dayton, Armstrong County for
approximately three years. The house has seven bedrooms.
Sveryone has his own room.
Father has two children from a previous relationship:
C-, 23, and~' 19. They do not live with him.
Father is a high school graduate. He received special
education for reading and learning problems from first through
ninth grades. Father noted that the Children also have learning
problems. Father ~erved in the U.S. Marine Corps and received
an honorable discharge.
1 Mother contended that D- and A9 also have their paramours living with chem in the house.
2 s v.s••• "o. 2011-1174-Civii
Father's mother worked as a secretary and his father
was a butcher.
Father works as a foreman at Rosebud Mining Company.
He has worked there for 11 years. Father works 4 a.m. to 2 p.m.
or 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Friday. On occasion, Father
also works Saturday. When he works the morning shift, he gets
up at 3 a.m. and returns home at 3 p.m. For the later shift,
Father leaves the house at noon and gets home at midnight.
Father can be reached in the mine where he works by landline
telephone.
If Father is granted more time with the Children
during the week, he will see them for forty-five minutes when he
works the afternoon shift. When Father works the daylight
shift, he will see the girls after they come home from school.
At the time he testified, Father had partial custody
of the Children on Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. and every
other weekend from 4 p.m. Friday to 8 p.m Sunday. Father
testified that previously, Mother was more flexible about giving
Father more time than the custody order called for. Father
would text Mother and ask for more time with the Children and
Mother would permit it. Father was getting the Children every
weekend. That stopped the day that Father asked Mother for
fifty/fifty custody. Mother said no, she did not think that was 3 s v. s••• No. 2011-1414-Civil
a good idea. Father still wishes to have at least F- fifty
percent of the time.
Exchanges take place with Father picking up and
dropping off the Children. Meyer, at 18. Father does not
interact with Mother. Father told Meyer in mid-2015 that if a
problem arose, it was solved via text messages or by meeting in
person. Meyers Report, at 18. Father said there was a "mild
level of hostility between he and [Mother]" and said this
included a strong expression of dislike. Father admitted that
he had talked to the Children regarding the custody situation.
FIIII and G- both attend West Shamokin High School.
G'IIII is in St11 grade and EIIII is in 7th grade. Father testified
either W- that if he is granted custody of the Children during the week,
bus in the morning. or Paternal Grandmother will put thern on the school
Father described Mother as a good parent and said that
their marital problems began when Mother started school. Father
said he was depressed during their relationship and argued with
Mother. Meyer Report, at 15. Father stated that Mother did not
attempt to change. The parties were arguing. Mother wanted a
divorce; Father did not. Mother then called 911. and said Father
had hit her. Mother obtained a PFA against him. Id.
4 s v, s••• Ho. 2011-1474-Civil
Father said he had no concerns regarding Mother's
parenting abilities and there are no disagreements between them
regarding education, religion, athletic/recreational experiences
and special interests. Father believes that ~would benefit
from speech services and told Meyer that both Children need
medication for focusing. Meyer Report, at 17.
Father said he believed that Mother wo~ld say Father
is inadequate or incompetent to care for the Children and that
Father uses alcohol excessively. Meyer Reportr at 15. Father
said Mother thinks he is not responsible. Id.
Father is a Christian. He feels that religion is an
important influence on the Children1s lives.
According to Father, EJIII and G- have a Jove/hate
relationship with each other "minute by minute.u Separating the
two is in their best interests. The Children need time apart
and time together, Father said. He wants what the Children
want. They should make their own decisions about where to live.
Father said that cJIII is better away _from GIIII- Paternal Grandmother. lives two or three hundred yards
away from Father's house, as do two siblings of Father. They
are available to help with the Children. W- works for
Paternal Grandmother at a care home located two or three hundred
yards away. £11111 and Giii both play softball and F .... is in 5 s v. s••• No. ~011-1414-Civil
the marching band. The Children also are involved in the 4-H
Club. Father can get the Children to their activities by
himself with the help of his family and Wendy.
The girls need adult supervision when they are at
home. Wendy watches them when Father is at work. The Children
get along "greatn with Wendy, according to Father.
The Children are in good physical health. However,
they have serious emotional problems.
Father testified that Giii will not come over to his
house because of an incident involving a babysitter. The
Pennsylvania State Police and Armstrong County's Children, Youth
and Family Services were called in to find out what had
happened.
After the incident, G91 began to have individual
therapy. Although joint counseling was recommended, Father
resisted participating in counseling with G- First, he did
not believe that the incident described by Giii actually
occurred. Secondly, he does not believe in counseling. "I
believe counseling is not the answer to anything,n Father
testified. ~r think counseling is useless sometimes.n He said
people just "have to work things out."
Father has had serious mental health problems himself.
He began to have depression in 2009 when he felt neglected by 6 s v• s••• !le. 2011-H71l-Civil
~other. Meyer Report, at 15. Father also suffered from anxiety
in 2009, feeling jittery and having tachycardia. Father was
involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward in 2010 when be
threatened to commit suicide. As a result, Father went to
individual therapy and took psych medication. Father stopped
taking medication after a short time. Father said that he did
had therapy for a year, although Mother said he only had therapy
for a short time. Father testified that be stopped because his
therapist and doctor said he no longer needed counseling or
medication. However, Father did not give this reason for
stopping to Meyer.
With respect to his alcohol intake, Father testified
that he drinks a case of beer per week, maybe a case every two
weeks. Father then testified that he only drinks two cases of
beer per month. Father denied drinking 15 beers a day. He said
he outgrew that "a long time ago." Father noted that he had no
arrests and no work missed because of drinking. At trial,
Father said he had passed a drug and alcohol test at work. The
test was taken July 14, 2015. See Exhibit 2. Father also had a
drug and alcohol evaluation done November 13, 2015 because of
Meyer's recommendation that Father do so. This evaluation, made
at The Open Door, stated that "[b)ased on the information you
provided during your assessment, it is the r ecomroendatLon of the 7 s 'I. s--- Ho. 2011-1474-Civil
treatment team at this time that you do not meet criteria for
outpatient treatment." Ex. 1. The report further stated, "It is
important for the Court and legal counselor or any other parties
to note that the findings of The Open Door are highly dependent
on the extent and veracity of the reports made by the
individual. " Id. {emphasis added. )
Father does not believe that his drinking led to his
divorce from Mother.
According to Father, his paramour drinks only
occasionally. Father also s e i.d that "cmidoes not object to
drinking." Gtlll has contradicted that assertion.
Mother takes the Children to the doctor and dentist.
According to Father, Mother does not tell Father what happens at
those visits.
Father does not receive a schedule of the Children's
softball games. He said he only finds out there is a game when
he gets a text from Mother the day of the game. Father would
like Mother to keep him more informed.
Father believes that the camps the Children go to are
good for them. They help the Children to make new friends.
Father asserted that Mother screens Father's calls to
-c:he Children. Father said he used to text the girls every day
or every other day. However, Mother got the girls new cell 8 S Ho. v, 5---- 2Gll-1474~Civil
phones for Christmas of 2015. As a result, Father said, Mother
can now read everyone's texts. Because the texts are no longer
private, Father no longer texts the Children.
In the last year, G- has not come to Father's house
as often as FIIIII it face to face and via text.
or talk to him. has.
The However,
last time G- G- Father has tried to talk to GIIII abouf · will not text him
stayed overnight wa s Easter
2015, when she stayed from Saturday to Sunday. Things we nt;
quite well that weekend, according to Father.
If the Court grants Father equal physical custody of
the Children, he will introduce the Children to the expanded
time with him slowly. However, Father would not force GIIII ~o come to his house right away, since she is the one having
problems with him. Father said be would have FIIII come over
more right away, since that is what she wants.
Mother, 43, lives in a house in Dayton, Armstrong
18. Jllllf and Miii are children from Mother's previous
marriage. The house was the partys' marital residence. 'I'he
Children have not primarily resided anywhere else.
Mother has been a certified nurse practitioner since
20J2. She works in the emergency room of Armstrong County·
9 s Uo. v, s--- 2Dll-1474-C1vil
Memorial Hospital. Mother works three eight-hour shifts one
week and four eight-hour shifts the next.
Mother and the Children are Presbyterian. Mother told
Meyer that the religion is an important influence in the
Children's lives.
J. 'l'-and Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather,
G-,
Mother is close to her parents. are dairy farmers on the M1IIII family farm.
Mother reported to Meyer that in 2010, Father held a
pistol to his head and she was concerned for him and as well as
for herself. Father signed himself into the psychiatric ward
and the parties separated for four months. Father received
medication and therapy, but became agitated when he stop taking
his medication. Mother told Meyer that Father was physically
intimidating to her and emotionally abusive during their
relationship. In the summer of 2011, Father shoved Mother and
kicked in a door. In 2011, Mother obtained a one-year
Protection from Abuse order against Father because of what she
termed his hostility, aggression, suicidal threats and physical
intimidation.
According to Mother, Father is an alcoholic. He has a
long history of daily alcohol abuse. Father has tried to quit
but faiJ.ed many times. He even attended AA in the past. Mother 10 s 'J, s--- no. ~011-1q11-civil
told Meyer that Father sometimes left her for months at a time
on alcoholic binges. Mother has known Father to consume 12
beers in one or two hours. When Father drinks, he becomes
hostile and angry.
Mother told Meyer that Father associates with people
with the same alcoholic behavior and has been known to become
iricreasingly hostile and aggressive with the Children when
drinking, especially when drunk or hungover. Father has also
left the Children in the care of questionable individuals.
According to Meyer, Mother has found Father and his
girlfriend texting disparaging comments about Mother to F-
and discussing custody matters with her.
Mother stated that she did not typically discuss or
disclose custody information with the Children unless she needed
to take them to something like a conciliation or hearing. It is
her belief that both Father and his girlfriend regularly discuss
custody matters with F-.
Mother said both girls have "experienced episodes of
not wanting to go to their dad's." Fiii has maintained the
schedule but GIIII has refused to go. The visitations have
interfered with the relationship between~ and he.r sister.
EIIII eventually reduced her visits, with Father admitting later
that it wa s because Fiii wanted to spend more time w i.th Mother. 11 s v. s--- uo , 2011-1
Meyer Report, at 11. Flllf uses visitation as a weapon to get
her way and is not mature enough to decide where she should
stay, Mother said.
Mother also told Meyer that she has "concerns that
[Father] lives in a cabin with his girlfriend and two of her
adult children, who also have partners [.) [Mother related,]
'[I]t is my understanding that they regularly engage in keg
parties and smoke pot.'n Id. Mother sa~d that the adult
children and their partners "regularly care for the girls." Id.
a1: 13.
Father subpoenaed FJIII for the first scheduled trial,
but not G- He also took FIIII to his attorney's office.
Father's different treatment of the Children resulted in
increased discord between Fml and ~
G~and Flllll!f have both been diagnosed with
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Father does not
believe this is a valid diagnosis. According to Mother, he has
refused to regularly give them their medication.
The Children have learning difficulties and they both
engage in lying behavior.
G- has been diagnosed with anxiety. She is
avoidant and has difficulty making friends. She made a
homicidal threat toward her teacher during the fif~h grade and 12 S uo . v, 5--- :?.Oll-1q7,1-C!1Til
was expelled for three days. Mother told Meyer about the
following problems involving G-:
In December of 2011, the father had gone to a Christmas party and wanted to leave, at which time her brother and a cousin threw her down steps. E'ather had passed out drunk and "became belligerent" when asked to get up. In 2012, G & [ s anxiety increased and she became physically aggressive with her mother. Counseling was recommended but father refused for her to receive such. At one point in 2012, when suicidal and homicidal, [G f threatened to cut her mother's hair off and stab her in her sleep. She said if she was forced to go to her father's, she would kill him, and G- eventually stopped seeing him. * * * Other i~nts between 2012-2013 involve their father leaving the children with female babysitters who then had a party with ~eeoro, hid~ t··hechildren~ s plhofnes. anhd jumped on ch z: am. I was again e t w i.t; a teenager w o at a filmed G and threatened to publish pictures of her. ~ threatened to stab them. In the fall of 20121 ~was in possession 0£ G in a vehicle while G g was agitated, and she threatened to jump from the car because she did not want to go to her father's home.
Meyer Report, at 5.
and homicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior when G ... was
with him. He called Gtl•• s behavior "typical temper t.a n t r urns . 11
Mother regularly told Father about G... 's problems, but in 2012
Father "made it clear it was not his problem and be wanted
13 s , s--• t , No. 2011-1174-CLvil
nothing to do with it," Mother testified.2 Mother thought~
needed counseling, but Father was reluctant to agree. He denied
that G-had a problem or needed treatment. Father finalJ.y
consented to G- seeing a therapist at the end of November
2012. Father took eight weeks to sign the necessary paperwork
and the signing had to be accomplished through the parties'
attorneys.
It also took nearly two months to get Father's consen~
for FIIIII to get counseling, Mother said. Father has aJ.so
opposed counseling for himself. He does no~ feel that
counseling is useful. He has called it "hogwash.11
sessions with her for a while
before getting her own therapist. Father would not consent
until he was assured that Mother was not a part of the
coun s e Li n q .
counseling together. It was recommended that Fathe:r and
However, only after Meyer issued his G- do some
a babysitter G- reported an incident at Father's house involving
and the babysitter's boyfriend. ~ said they
videotaped her dancing with a bear. They then forced her to
2Father denied ever saying this. s v. s--- uo , 2011-H7q-C.lVl.l
dance in a sexual manner with a baseball bat. Father sided with
the babysitter. C11111exhibited increasing anxiety and made
threats to hurt herself and others.
c9III was prescribed Selexa. for anxiety as well as
medication for her ADHD. At G9III' s request, she was weaned off
the medication in 2015 because she was doing so well.
wanted to stop her counseling, but Mother and Gllll's therapist
recommended against it.
G.. has made progress in counseling. Mother
reported that at the time of trial, G- s anxiety was
"minimal" and she had not made any threats to hurt herself or
a n yorre else.
According
declined significantly to Mother,
in 2014. G-' c;9II s visi t s to Fa t h e r ' s house
would get anxious on some
visits and "we'd let her come home early. Sometimes I:1!11111 would
stay with Father." This occurred 15 to 20 times. ~ s
visits to Father were practically nonexistent in 2015. G..
went over there once.
In early 2015, Melissa McKee, the girls' therapist,
recommended that ~begin to see Father "gradually."
However, Mother has not t a ke n F- to Father's hou.s e more
because "the
setup," Mother said. behavior
G- of F- is a problem
s "relat.ionship with F- 15 in the current
gets s Uo. v, s--- 2011-1,74-Civil
worse the mo z e they are s epa ret ed." Wben - initially comes
back from Father's house, "all her bad behaviors and emotions
are at their peak," according to Mother. "Then she calms down
and eventually is a nicer person." McKee and Meyer are
recommending a gradual .increase in time with Father "whenever
the girls can consistently improve in their individual behavior
and in their relationship," Mother said.
G-has not spent the night at Father's house in
2016. She will not go. Gmll says she does not like it out
there. "I speculate that she doesn't feel safe," Mother said.
"She shuts down when I try to discuss it." G .. is unable to
verbalize her feelings about the matter.
G- last visited Father's house on March 15, 2016
for four hours. Her behavior deteriorated. Her anxiety
spiraled and she had a panic attack. The Children were fighting
and Mother had to separate them for the night.
'l'he relationship between Giii and E9III is still a
serious problem. "It's beyond sibling rivalry,u Mother said.
"It's an adversarial relationship." Mother said ''[t]here isn't
a day they're not screaming and yelling at each other." They
G-" F- have come to blows.
has touched. "F- has developed a real
refuses to touch anything or anyone that G- dislike of
16 s v, s•-- uo. ~011-lq74-Civil
The hostility between the sisters is most noticeable
when F-returns home from Father's house. G-s anxiety
escalates and the two girls fight.
At the time of trial, each girl was having individual
therapy once a month. Therapist Melissa McKee sees G- and
F-together for the last half hour of the session.
In the .summer of 2015, Mother and F2ther did a trial
run of ~ going back and forth week on and week off. It was
an "utter failure,u Mother said. "It negatively affected the
feuding between the two girls." Mother noted that once the
vJeekabouts stopped in the fall, G-and f11111s relationship
"changed and got better." However, the r e La t Lon sh i p is "still
an issue. It' s not consistently good." F9111 is ta king
Concerta for ADHD. She actually requested it for herself for
school, Mother said. The medication has helped.
Mother said she finds it "very concerning to split
[up] the girls." Her concern is that separating the Children
more "will further exacerbate the [acrimonious) relationship
between the girls." Mother said the problems between G~ and
F.. pL1ts a strain on her entire familyr including her two
older stepchildren.
Mother said it is in the best interests of the
·children that there be no change in the amount of time that 17 s v. s ..... l1o. :!011-1474-Civil
Father has each child. ~There is even stress in the present
schedule," Mother said. GIIII should not be forced to see
Father at all in the present situation.
Meyer interviewed W .. S-, Father's paramour,
and elicited the following information. S , age 41,
graduated from high school with average grades. She attended
business school and became certified as a medical assistant in
1994. Semanovich was previously married and has three children:
an 18-year-old daughter and two sons, ages 20 and 21. She and
F~ther have lived together more than two and a half years.
Semanovich has been employed at Back to Basics since 2013. She
denied any medical problems, physical limitations or mental or
emo~ional difficulties. She said she has no history of drug or
alcohol abuse and has no criminal history.
Meyer observed the Children separately and together at
Mother's house.
that she enjoys cooking.
culinary activities. Meyer, at 21. F- When the girls were together, G•••
aJ.so reported interest in told Meyer
Activities that the Children
do with Mother include cooking, going out to eat and playing
board games. Id. Fiii told Meyer that she does not like it when
someone touches her possessions, such as when G.. touches
them. Id. F9llsaid, "I freak out ... cry ... jump up and down." Id.
]8 s v, s--- No. 2011-1414-Civil
The Children said they had been grounded for fighting and had
also lost phone and iPad privileges.
When Meyer saw G-alone, G-discussed a problem
she had had at Father's house in which 1'111, S ,s
daughter, yelled at her and would not let G-=al-:-.e her
Christmas presents back to Mother's house. Id. at 22. G ..
said it is unfair tbat they treat 7'111better and treat F ..
better than her. Id. She told Meyer she does not like
~'s children. G-said that Piii", , Father
a.nd .sometimes D-babysi t her. Questioned regarding a f:i.ght
that allegedly occurred at Father's house, GJIIIII stated that
- might have "accidentally" pushed her and that "he was
drinking alcohol.u Id. Asked about her interactions with
babysitters at Father's house, ~ said, "I prefer not to talk
about it." G9II said she may want to see Father a couple of
times a year, bu~ not on an extended vacation. Id.
Ln t e r v i.e we d independently, F.. t:.old Meyer she has an
adequate relationship with S-'s children. Flllil said
she is usually at Father's house in the afternoon. She hangs
out there with cousins or an uncle. Id. Occasionally,
S- watches her. EW111 is not aware why G- does not
w i s h to visit Father. Asked about her relationship ,·Ji th G ... ,
FIIII said, "G-pushes my buttons." Id. ~ said she would 19