Ressler, S. v. Eppley, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Ressler, S. v. Eppley, T.

DecidedJuly 2, 2021

Docket131 WDA 2021

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ressler, S. v. Eppley, T. (Ressler, S. v. Eppley, T.) 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

Ressler, S. v. Eppley, T., (Pa. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A14026-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SHAWNA A. RESSLER, NOW : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SHAWNA A. RIOPELLE : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : v. : : TRAVIS L. EPPLEY : : Appellee : No. 131 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered December 23, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2014-299

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: July 2, 2021

Appellant, Shawna A. Ressler, now Shawna A. Riopelle (“Mother”),

appeals from the order entered in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas,

denying her request to relocate with the parties’ minor child, L.A.E. (“Child”).

We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.

Mother and Appellee, Travis L. Eppley (“Father”), dated for approximately

three years, and Child was born in 2011. The parties separated in 2013. By

custody order entered July 31, 2019, the parties have shared legal custody of

Child. Mother has primary physical custody, subject to Father’s periods of

partial custody every other weekend. Father is also afforded additional

custody periods “as the parties may mutually agree.” (Order, entered

7/31/19, at 5). J-A14026-21

Father lives in Cambria County and works as a forklift operator at a retail

distribution center. Father has been in a relationship with his current partner

for almost five years. Mother also lives in Cambria County. She worked as

an engineering consultant, supporting the Pennsylvania National Guard, but

her government contract terminated. In 2020, Mother married Justin Riopelle

(“Stepfather”), who is a sergeant in the United States Army. Stepfather is

currently stationed in Hawaii, but he is scheduled for relocation in 2022.

On April 27, 2020, Mother filed a notice of proposed relocation, seeking

to move to Hawaii with Child. Father filed a counter-affidavit on May 4, 2020,

objecting to relocation or modification of custody. On July 24, 2020, the court

conducted a summary hearing via Zoom. By opinion and order entered July

30, 2020, the court denied Mother’s request to relocate.

Mother subsequently requested a full evidentiary hearing, which the

court conducted on November 6, 2020. As part of the hearing, the court

interviewed Child outside the presence of counsel or the parties. On December

23, 2020, the court issued another order and opinion denying Mother’s request

to relocate. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal on January 22, 2021.

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and make an error of law in finding the Father’s testimony credible pertaining to the integrity of Father’s motives in opposing relocation?

Was the trial court’s decision to deny relocation against the sufficiency of the evidence?

-2- J-A14026-21

Was the trial court’s decision to deny relocation against the weight of the evidence such that the conclusion of the trial court was unreasonable in light of the evidence?

(Mother’s Brief at 8).

In her three issues, Mother asserts that Father failed to provide a reason

for his opposition to relocation when testifying at the November 6, 2020

hearing, and the court failed to address this omission in its subsequent order

and opinion. Further, Mother emphasizes that Father provided inaccurate

testimony on multiple occasions during the full evidentiary hearing. Mother

insists that Father lied about his marital status, his influence on Child’s

religious beliefs, how often he sees Child, and what activities he participates

in with Child. Although Mother acknowledges that the court is to be given

latitude in making credibility determinations, she maintains it was

unreasonable to credit Father’s testimony under these circumstances.

Mother also claims that the court did not properly weigh all relevant

evidence, including Father’s inability to provide a reason for opposing

relocation and his status as a convicted felon. Regarding Father’s relationship

with Child, Mother insists that Father does not spend as much time with Child

as he claims, he rarely exercises his custodial rights, and he performs few

parental duties. Additionally, in the event of relocation, Mother contends she

will pay for all flights and make all arrangements for Child to visit Father.

Mother argues that her willingness to cover all travel expenses for Child is a

valid reason to approve relocation. Based upon the foregoing, Mother

-3- J-A14026-21

concludes that the court’s denial of her relocation petition is against the weight

and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

In reviewing a child custody order:

[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. This Court 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, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed 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.

S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation

omitted).

“The trial court must consider all ten relocation factors and all sixteen

custody factors when making a decision on relocation that also involves a

custody decision.” A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 836 (Pa.Super. 2013).

With respect to a custody order, Section 5328(a) provides:

§ 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 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

-4- J-A14026-21

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.

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