J.R. v. C.J.R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 24, 2022·No. 785 WDA 2021·Unpublished

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

J.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

C.J.R. :

:

Appellant : No. 785 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Dated June 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Domestic Relations at No(s): 1937 of 2019 GD

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: FEBDRUARY 24, 2022 C.J.R. (Father) appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) granting J.R. (Mother) primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter, C.R. (born 5/11) and their son, M.R. (born 10/13) (collectively, Children) during the school year and allowing their relocation from Uniontown, Pennsylvania, to Flint, Michigan.1 Father challenges the trial court’s assessment of the statutory custody and relocation factors and its determination that supervision is necessary for his periods of partial custody. We affirm.

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Father is from Uniontown and Mother is from Flint.

I.

A.

The parties met in 2010 in North Carolina where Father was then stationed in the Marine Corps. During their relationship, Father was deployed to Afghanistan for several months, at which time Mother moved back to Flint and gave birth to C.R. When Father returned, they resided together in North Carolina and then in Louisiana, where Father was stationed. The couple’s relationship was always conflict-laden and they attempted to reconcile when Mother learned she was pregnant with M.R. in March 2013. They resided in Louisiana until Father left the Marine Corps in April 2015 and moved to Uniontown where they continue to live together. They were married in August 2016.

B.

Mother filed a complaint in divorce and notice of relocation in fall 2019 seeking to relocate Children to a four-bedroom home in Flint owned by her father. Father filed a counter-affidavit opposing the relocation. The trial court held a trial de novo over two days in January 2021 at which several witnesses testified, including Mother, Father, Children and S.S., a former girlfriend of Father.2 Mother testified that she is employed full-time by Dick’s Sporting Goods in a management position. She typically works a ten-hour, five-day per week shift

2At the time of trial, there was a custody order in effect through a North Carolina court awarding Mother primary custody of C.R. The order did not address M.R.

and her employment would transfer upon relocation. Mother recounted that in March 2018, Father’s drug use began to impact Children because he would smoke synthetic marijuana and exhibited “zombiefied behavior, so he wasn’t necessarily aware of where my kids were and what was going on with them if he did have them in his care.” (N.T. Trial, 1/08/21 at 50). Although Mother and members of Father’s family urged him to enter a rehabilitation facility, he refused and continued abusing substances. Mother testified to her firsthand knowledge of Father’s drug use after she filed for divorce in that she “found him passed out in the driveway sleeping multiple times [and] found a bottle of what had marijuana in it.” (Id. at 53). Mother described photographs of Father introduced into evidence as exhibits depicting him “on synthetic marijuana at all hours of the night sleeping in the car [and one photograph showing] him passed out in the car with a bowl . . . he had his pants undone with his private area out.” (Id. at 55). Mother explained that Father was fired from his job at Console Mine because of his substance abuse and his affair with another employee. He is currently self-employed hauling junk loads and firewood delivery through a business he started with his father.

Mother testified that since she filed for divorce, Father has made several changes to the condition of the marital home to make it essentially unlivable, including ripping “everything out” of the kitchen so that “there is no working sink, no counter tops . . . the ceiling is open and exposed.” (Id. at 63). Father has thrown some of Mother’s belongings away out of anger and displays his firearms, knives and a hatchet openly on walls in the basement accessible to

Children. Mother described an incident in which Father burned materials in the fireplace other than wood and “the whole house filled with smoke and I couldn’t breathe it was in my chest.” (Id. at 66). Mother became fearful of Father and sought police assistance when he set up cameras pointing at the living room sofa where she sleeps and went into a “manic episode” slamming things in the house. (Id. at 67).

Mother recounted that when she and Father initially discussed divorce, he indicated that she could have custody of Children and he understood why she no longer wanted to reside in Uniontown. Because they could not agree on child support and tax issues, Father retracted his initial position. Mother’s brother, sister and large extended family live in Flint and they are very supportive of her and Children. Mother attended the same school district that Children would enroll in and she has researched local medical care providers and extracurricular activities for Children. Mother stated that she has always met the everyday needs of Children by taking them to appointments and lessons and communicating with teachers.

Mother acknowledged that the drive from Uniontown to Flint is six hours but testified she believed Father’s relationship with Children could be preserved, and that he and his family are welcome to visit Flint at any time. Mother is willing to meet at a halfway point to drive Children to Father and he can talk with them on the telephone on a daily basis. Mother testified to her belief that the move would not negatively impact Children, and that while she refrains from speaking to them about the divorce, Father has “screamed and yelled and thrown

things to where the kids are afraid.” (Id. at 87). Mother has no support system in Uniontown but has a large support system in Flint and cost-free childcare through family. Mother testified that Father has been absent for much of Children’s childhoods, preoccupied with drug use and other women, while she has put Children first and will continue to do so.

Father testified that he served in the Marines for nine years and had difficulty adjusting to civilian life after leaving the military. He acknowledged, “I smoked synthetic marijuana heavily. It started more as a recreational thing, I became addicted to it [. . . in the] summer of 2010.” (Id. at 183). Father decided to “get clean” in February 2017 because “I didn’t know who I was anymore. . . and realized ‘listen buddy you need to do something better or you’re going to be dead.’” (Id. at 184). Father explained that he participated in mental health and drug addiction counseling for about one year after he was arrested for resisting arrest while he was driving intoxicated. Father indicated that he was fully sober from February 2017 through January 2020, but that he then smoked medical marijuana and took “four or five oxycodone” tablets that had not been prescribed to him because he had injured his elbow and hand. (Id. at 187).

Father stated that he has never smoked in front of Children nor driven while he was high, and that he is willing to participate in counseling again. He admitted to sleeping in his car “countless” times because he was hiding his drug addiction. (Id. at 199). Father represented that he began remodeling the marital home to help with sleeping arrangements after he and Mother separated,

and that during the kitchen remodel, the home was without running water in that room for only ten days.

Father operates a business with his father and “hauls things [such as]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

J.R. v. C.J.R., (Pa. Ct. App. 2022).

J.R. v. C.J.R. (J.R. v. C.J.R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D.K. v. S.P.K.
102 A.3d 467 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
M.J.N. v. J.K.
169 A.3d 108 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)