L.E.C. f.k.a L.C.S. v. J.A.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

L.E.C. f.k.a L.C.S. v. J.A.S.

DecidedJune 29, 2015

Docket1598 MDA 2014

StatusUnpublished

This text of L.E.C. f.k.a L.C.S. v. J.A.S. (L.E.C. f.k.a L.C.S. v. J.A.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L.E.C. f.k.a L.C.S. v. J.A.S., (Pa. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A08006-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

L.E.C. F/K/A L.C.S., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

J.A.S.,

Appellee No. 1598 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered August 19, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 2009-1567

BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JUNE 29, 2015

L.E.C. f/k/a L.C.S. (“Mother”) appeals from the August 19, 2014 order

that denied her petition to relocate from the State College area in Centre

County, Pennsylvania, to her new home in Farmington, Connecticut, with her

children, E.S., a daughter born in October of 1998, and C.S., a son born in

December of 2000 (collectively, the “Children”), whom she had with her

former husband, J.A.S. (“Father”). The order also modified an existing order

in which the parties shared legal and physical custody of the Children, to

provide that Father would have primary physical custody during the school

year, and Mother would have primary physical custody in Connecticut during

the summer. The trial court further awarded Mother and Father partial ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A08006-15

physical custody of the Children during the other parent’s period of primary

physical custody. As discussed infra, Father has filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal due to alleged errors in Mother’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

We affirm the decision of the trial court and deny Father’s motion to dismiss.

The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history

of this case as follows:

Presently before the Court is a Petition for Relocation filed by [Mother] on May 13, 2014. Mother relocated to Connecticut and seeks to modify this [c]ourt’s Order of July 10, 2010, which ordered that the parties share legal and physical custody of the [Children], so that they may move with her.

[Father] filed his Counter-Affidavit on May 14, 2014. On July 3, 2014, Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody requesting primary custodial responsibilities during the school year and asking that Mother have primary custodial responsibilities during the summer if Mother relocates to Connecticut. Hearings on this matter were held on July 8, 2014, July 22, 2014, and August 11, 2014, and both parties have submitted briefs.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/14, at 1.

At the hearing on July 8, 2014, Mother presented the testimony of

D.L.C., her mother. Also, the trial court interviewed the Children together,

in chambers, with counsel for both parties present. Finally, Mother testified

on her own behalf.

At a hearing on July 22, 2014, Mother continued her testimony.

Thereafter, Father presented the testimony of R.A.Y., a family friend; S.E.H.,

E.S.’s former sixth grade teacher; and B.B., a licensed Pennsylvania private

-2- J-A08006-15

detective hired by Father’s counsel. Finally, Father testified on his own

behalf.

At the hearing on August 11, 2014, Mother again testified on her own

behalf. Father then testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony

of C.F.S., his mother.

The trial court found that Mother relocated to Connecticut between the

time of the hearing on July 8, 2014 and the hearing on July 22, 2014. The

trial court then denied Mother’s petition for relocation and modified the

existing custody order to award Father primary physical custody during the

school year, and Mother primary physical custody during the summer. In its

opinion accompanying the August 19, 2014 order, the trial court stated the

following:

At the hearing held on July 22, 2014, Mother informed Father and the [c]ourt that she had relocated to Connecticut the previous weekend. The custody schedule will therefore necessarily change. Mother and Father propose similar Parenting Plans wherein the [C]hildren will remain with one parent during the school year and spend the majority of the summer with the other parent.

After considering the record, the evidence, the testimony, and the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the [C]hildren to remain in the State College Area School District with Father.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/14, at 1-2.

On September 18, 2014, Mother filed a notice of appeal, along with a

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

-3- J-A08006-15

1925, raising thirty allegations of trial court error. In her appellate brief

Mother raises only the following two issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in awarding primary custody to Appellee/Father, where the evidence of record established that Appellee/Father is controlling, morally self-righteous, and less willing to cooperate with Appellant/Mother to advance the best interests of the adolescent children[?]

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in refusing to allow the adolescent children to move to Connecticut with Appellant/Mother, despite the [C]hildren’s well-reasoned and well-articulated preference to move with Appellant/Mother[?]

Mother’s Brief at 3 (reordered for purposes of discussion).

On September 29, 2014, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s

appeal on four bases: Mother’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement is not concise;

certain issues raised in the statement are vague; Mother failed to preserve

certain issues in the trial court; and the statement contains an issue of

attorney discipline, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of our Supreme

Court. We find that, despite Father’s complaints about Mother’s Pa.R.A.P.

1925 statement, Mother preserved her first issue on appeal in issue eleven

in her concise statement, citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(4). She preserved her

second issue on appeal in her first and fourth issues in her concise

statement. Therefore, we need not address the numerous matters about

which Father complains in his motion. Accordingly, we deny Father’s motion

to dismiss.

-4- J-A08006-15

Initially, we observe that, as the custody hearings in this matter were

held on July 8, 2014, July 22, 2014, and August 11, 2014, the Child Custody

Act (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321 to 5340, is applicable. See C.R.F. v.

S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 445 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holding that, if the custody

evidentiary proceeding commences on or after the effective date of the Act,

i.e., January 24, 2011, the provisions of the Act apply).

In custody cases, our standard of review is as follows:

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.

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