Krasley, A. v. Krasley, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 2, 2023
• Docket: 798 MDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S35017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ASHLEY KRASLEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : DEVON KRASLEY : No. 798 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-21-08183

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2023

A.K. (“Mother”) appeals from the order granting the petition for special

relief filed by D.K. (“Father”) and ordering that T.H.K. (“Child”) shall attend

kindergarten at Hinkletown Mennonite School (“Hinkletown”). We affirm.

Mother filed a Complaint in Custody in November 2021. The court

granted the parties shared legal custody of their two children, with Mother

having primary physical custody and Father having partial physical custody.

Father filed the subject petition for special relief in March 2023, requesting,

among other things, that the court issue an order as to where Child would

attend kindergarten the following school year. The court held a hearing on the

petition.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S35017-23

Father argued Child should attend the full-day kindergarten program at

Hinkletown, which is where Child attended preschool. Mother argued Child

should instead attend the half-day kindergarten program at Highland

Elementary School (“Highland”) in the Ephrata School District. Child’s sister

would be attending fourth grade at Highland that year.

At the hearing, Father’s father, Douglas J. Krasley (“Paternal

Grandfather”), testified that in his opinion it was a disservice to Child for Child

to attend a half-day, rather than full-day, kindergarten program. N.T.,

5/10/2023, at 6. He said that he and his wife would be willing to pay “the

excess costs” of the full-day kindergarten program, which he believed would

be “$3,000, $3,500, something like that.” Id. at 7.

Father also presented the testimony of a parent with children at

Hinkletown, Rus Akinin. He testified that his son was attending kindergarten

at Hinkletown at the time of the hearing, and his two older children also

attended the school. He said that his family “absolutely love[s]” Hinkletown,

and it was “very conducive to [their] family life and family values.” Id. at 11.

He stated they are satisfied with their children’s academic progress, and that

his kindergartener is identifying words, reading sight words, and can count to

100. Id. at 12. During Akinin’s testimony, Father admitted into evidence the

kindergarten schedule for Hinkletown. Akinin testified it was consistent with

what his son was doing, and that it included language arts, math, fifth-grade

buddies, and Spanish. Id. at 13-14.

-2- J-S35017-23

On cross-examination, Akinin testified that part of the values he likes

about the school are the religious values. However, he also said he likes the

personal responsibility taught and the attention the students receive from the

teachers. Id. at 15.

Father testified next. He testified Child adjusted well to the preschool at

Hinkletown, Father has had positive interactions with the teachers, and Child

“loves it.” Id. at 19. Father testified that he would use his portion of a tax

refund to pay for the school and that Paternal Grandfather would help with

the tuition. Id. at 19-20. He testified that he believed Hinkletown is the best

option for Child because he is going to be an older child in the class. Father

added that, in his view, if Child has “an opportunity to learn and have more of

a cultivated experience in an education sy[stem] where he can learn a little

bit more, it would be in his best interest moving forward.” Id. at 21-22. He

said Hinkletown would “better prepare[ Child and] set[] him up for a brighter

future to whatever the next step is, whether he continues to Hinkletown or he

goes to Highland Elementary for first grade.” Id. at 22.

Father further testified about Child’s kindergarten readiness

assessment, which reflected Child was able to write and tell what objects look

the same and different, and knew some shapes. Id. at 23. He believes Child

should go to full-day kindergarten five days a week because it will prepare

him for first grade and give him consistency and a routine. Id. at 26. Father

testified that the teachers and administration at Hinkletown were very

-3- J-S35017-23

responsive. Id. at 27. He also testified as to the school activities and field trips

and that the parents are involved in the school. Id. at 27-28.

On cross-examination, Father testified that S.K. goes to Highland and is

doing well there. Id. at 30.

The principal of Highland Elementary, Brett Michael Esbenshade,

testified that Highland is in the Ephrata School District and has classes from

kindergarten through fourth grade. Id. at 35-36. They have 456 children

enrolled, and have seven sections of half-day kindergarten. Id. The

kindergarten classes have 11 to 16 children per teacher, with an average of

15 students per teacher. Id. at 37. He testified that in the half-day

kindergarten program, there is math, English language arts, which includes

writing foundations, small group instruction, and reading, and that science

and social studies are incorporated into the other areas. Id. at 38-39. He

testified they offer library, art, music, and physical education to the

kindergarten students. Id. at 39. He testified that Highland has a strong PTO,

with many events, and the school has field trips. Id. at 40-41.

Mother testified next. She stated she would like Child to attend Highland

Elementary with his sister, S.K. Id. at 50. She stated she has been happy with

S.K.’s education at Highland, and the school “ha[s] a very strong reputation

for good academics but also even extending beyond.” Id. She testified they

have a lot of parent involvement and do a lot to develop a sense of community.

Id. Mother testified that S.K. takes her “role as big sister very seriously” and

enjoys showing Child “the ropes,” and Mother thinks it would be beneficial for

-4- J-S35017-23

both children if they attended the same school. Id. at 51. She stated they

would see each other in the hallways and would either go to or from school

together. Id. Mother testified S.K. attended kindergarten at Highland and they

have a “full jam[-]packed academic day,” where they focus on academics, but

“also tend to their social and emotional side of things.” Id. at 52. S.K. “loved

it when she was there for kindergarten,” and Mother has a high impression of

the teachers. Id.

Mother testified she is certified to teach kindergarten through sixth

grade and previously worked at a preschool program and spent two years as

a kindergarten teacher. Id. at 53. She stated she has concerns about the

academic quality of Hinkletown’s program, including a concern that, because

it is private, there is less accountability. Id. at 54. She testified Hinkletown

did not have data as to how its students performed compared to students

outside its program. Id. She testified that she believed that “socially and

emotionally the Hinkletown program has served [Child] well, but academically

[she does] not feel that he is ready for kindergarten.” Id. at 55. She pointed

out that in the assessment he knew only seven letters. Id. She further testified

that it is “very clear in the Hinkletown programs that they are providing an

anti-Baptist [sic] education and that’s something that parents are signing up

for when they sign their children to attend.” Id. at 66. She explained that she

considers herself non-denominational and “do[es] not agree that it’s the place

of a school to provide religious education . . . for the students.” Id. She stated

that she did not want her children to “be indoctrinated in an anti-Baptist [sic]

-5- J-S35017-23

religion.” Id. at 66-67. She stated that most of the preschools in the area are

through churches and she thought it was fine for preschool, where it was a

three half-day program. Id. at 68. She stated that the Bible classes and

instruction become “a little bit more prominent as time goes on.” Id.

In May 2023, the trial court ordered that Child “shall attend the full day

Kindergarten program at the Hinkletown Mennonite School for the 2023-2024

academic school year only.” Order, May 15, 2023. Mother filed a timely notice

of appeal.

Mother raises the following issues:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in separating the siblings from the schools that they would attend.

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in directing [Child] to attend a religious school rife with religious training when neither parent is Mennonite [n]or following the Anabaptist faith.

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in imposing a significant financial burden on the parties when the paternal grandfather was obligating himself to pay the full tuition.

IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in failing to give proper weight to which school afforded [Child] a better education.

Mother’s Br. at 4.1

“We review a trial court’s determination in a custody case for an abuse

of discretion, and our scope of review is broad.” S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d

1 Father did not file an appellate brief.

-6- J-S35017-23

396, 400 (Pa.Super. 2014). We 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) (citation omitted). Rather,

“[a]ppellate courts will find a trial court abuses its discretion if, in reaching a

conclusion, it overrides or misapplies the law, or the record shows that the

trial court’s judgment was either manifestly unreasonable or the product of

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Id. We must accept the findings of the

trial court if supported by the evidence, and we defer to the trial court

regarding credibility determinations and weight of the evidence. S.W.D., 96

A.3d at 400. “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.” Id.

“The paramount concern in child custody cases is the best interests of

the child.” C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 909 (Pa. 2018) (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.” M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 112 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Section 5328 of the Child Custody Act requires a trial court to consider

all best interests factors when “ordering any form of custody.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

5328(a). However, not every decision by a trial court in a custody case

involves an award of custody. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 402. There is no statutory

requirement that a trial court apply the Section 5328(a) custody factors when

it decides a “discrete and narrow issue ancillary to a materially unchallenged

custody arrangement.” M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1059 (Pa.Super. 2014).

-7- J-S35017-23

Therefore, a trial court must consider a child’s best interest when ruling upon

issues that are ancillary to the custody arrangement, but need not consider

all 16 factors unless it is awarding or modifying custody. Id. at 1063 n.4.

Mother first argues the court erred in failing to keep Child and S.K. in

the same school, asserting that keeping the siblings together would be in

Child’s best interest. She argues that although the trial court did not need to

analyze the 16 custody factors, it had to consider Child’s best interest, which

would include sending siblings to the same school. She maintains that

“Father’s different treatment of his children in terms of where they attend

kindergarten has no support in the record, factually or legally, and this fact

alone should result in the trial court’s decision being overturned.” Mother’s Br.

at 6. Mother argues Father’s reasons for keeping Child at Hinkletown are “non-

sensical and [he] offer[s] no facts to support his conclusion.” Id. at 9. She

thus maintains that the trial court’s reliance on Father’s reasons was

unreasonable. She asserts she testified as to why the siblings should attend

the same school and argues “[s]eparating a sister who protects her younger

brother and a younger brother who looks up to and emulates his older sister

is important,” and “all the evidence suggested” separating the siblings would

not be in Child’s best interest. Id. at 12.

The trial court concluded that continuing to attend Hinkletown

Mennonite School would be in Child’s best interest:

[T]he trial court found that it was in the Child’s best interest to continue attending Hinkletown . . . . First, the trial court believes that [Child] would be better served by attending a

-8- J-S35017-23

5-day a week full day kindergarten program like the one offered by Hinkletown. Additionally, [Child] attended pre- school at Hinkletown . . . previously and performed well there. The trial court reviewed a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment from Hinkletown that corroborated [Child’s] readiness to move to kindergarten. If [Child] were to attend Highland . . . the only option would be a half day program. The trial court believes that it is in [Child’s] best interest to attend a full-day program, five days a week. Father testified, and the court agrees, that full-time kindergarten would better prepare [Child] for first grade.

Trial Court Opinion, filed July 7, 2023, at 4-5 (unpaginated) (“1925(a) Op.”)

The record supports the trial court’s factual findings and it did not abuse

its discretion when finding that attending Hinkletown would be in Child’s best

interest. Although attending the same school as his sibling may have weighed

in favor of Child attending Highland, the trial court weighed all the evidence

and determined that attending the full-day kindergarten at Hinkletown would

be in Child’s best interest. We cannot say the court’s ruling was outside the

bounds of its discretion.

Mother next contends the trial court erred in ordering Child to attend a

religious school over Mother’s objection. She points out that neither parent

practices the Mennonite, Anabaptist faith and that she is opposed to her son

being educated in the faith. She argues that the religious instruction becomes

more intensive with each year and therefore that she allowed Child to attend

the preschool program should not constitute a waiver of her current objection.

Mother points out that she testified that she believes religious instruction

should be for the parents.

The trial court concluded Mother’s religious objection was disingenuous:

-9- J-S35017-23

Mother and Father previously agreed for [Child] to attend Hinkletown for the Pre-Kindergarten programming, knowing the religious based curriculum of the school. The Court finds Mother’s newly raised objection disingenuous and not credible. Father would still like the Child to attend Hinkletown and did not raise any concerns about [Child] being exposed to the Mennonite religion. Therefore, the Court finds that this argument is without merit.

1925(a) Op. at 5 (unpaginated).

We defer to a trial court’s credibility finding when supported by the

record, as it is here. Although at the hearing Mother raised concerns regarding

the religious instruction at Hinkletown, she permitted Child to attend pre-

school at the school. This issue lacks merit.

Mother next argues the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a

matter of law in placing a financial burden on non-parents. She argues the

court ordered that Child attend a private school and therefore should have

had to find that the parents had the financial ability to pay for the school, and

not place the obligation on Paternal Grandfather who has no legal obligation

to pay.

The trial court concluded Father and Paternal Grandfather testified they

would pay for the tuition, and the court found the testimony credible:

Father and [P]aternal [G]randfather both testified they would be able to cover the costs of the school. Paternal [G]randfather testified that he is willing to pay at least $3,000 of the tuition. The trial court found this testimony to be credible and therefore finds that Mother’s argument is without merit.

- 10 - J-S35017-23

The record supports the court’s credibility and factual findings. It was

not error for the court to conclude, based on the testimony, that Father and

Paternal Grandfather would pay the cost. This is so, even though Paternal

Grandfather was not a party to the custody dispute.

Mother next argues the court abused its discretion or erred when it

dismissed Mother’s testimony regarding which school would be better for

Child, and relied on Father’s testimony, as he is not an educator and did not

research the differences between the schools. She maintains the trial court

found the full-day kindergarten program better “without any plausible,

admissible evidence to support such a finding.” Mother’s Br. at 16. She argues

she testified about concerns regarding Child’s readiness for kindergarten,

Highland’s principal testified about its academic programming, and maintains

that Father “offered no real facts to support that his chosen religiously based

school was academically superior, much less on par, to the public school their

daughter attends.” Id. at 16-17.

As discussed above, the trial court reviewed the evidence and concluded

attending the full-day kindergarten program at Hinkletown was in Child’s best

interest. Contrary to Mother’s contention, Father presented evidence that

attending the full-day kindergarten program at Hinkletown would be in Child’s

best interest, including his own testimony, the testimony of another parent of

a kindergartner at Hinkletown, the kindergarten readiness assessment, and

the kindergarten schedule for the Hinkletown program. The court did not err

or abuse its discretion in reaching its conclusion.

- 11 - J-S35017-23

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/2023

- 12 -