T.M.G. v. J.E.G.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 21, 2015
• Docket: 1458 WDA 2014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S01043-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

T.M.G. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

J.E.G.

Appellee No. 1458 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order August 6, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s): 14853-2009

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2015

Appellant, T.M.G. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the

Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Appellee, J.E.G.

(“Father”), partial physical custody of their minor children, T.G. and R.G.

(“Children”), three weekends per month, plus one day per week. We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to

restate them.1

____________________________________________

1 Mother did not file a concise statement of errors contemporaneously with her notice of appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Nevertheless, on September 4, 2014, Mother filed an amended notice of appeal to include a Rule 1925 concise statement, which she supplemented on September 18, 2014. Furthermore, the trial court addressed Mother’s claims. Therefore, we will address Mother’s issues. See J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa.Super. (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S01043-15

Mother raises the following issue for our review:

DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT [ERR] IN AWARDING ADDITIONAL PARTIAL CUSTODY TO FATHER IN THAT THE COURT DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER THE CUSTODY BEST INTEREST FACTORS SET FORTH IN 23 PA.C.S. SECTION 5328(A) SPECIFICALLY: (1) WHICH PARTY [IS] MORE LIKELY TO ENCOURAGE AND PERMIT FREQUENT AND CONTINUING CONTACT BETWEEN CHILD AND ANOTHER PARTY[;] (3) THE PARENTAL DUTIES PERFORMED BY EACH PARTY ON BEHALF OF CHILD[;] (4) THE NEED FOR STABILITY AND CONTINUITY IN CHILD’S EDUCATION, FAMILY LIFE AND COMMUNITY LIFE[;] (7) THE WELL-REASONED PREFERENCE OF CHILD, BASED ON CHILD’S MATURITY AND JUDGMENT[;] (9) WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO MAINTAIN A LOVING, STABLE, CONSISTENT AND NURTURING RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD ADEQUATE FOR CHILD’S EMOTIONAL NEEDS[;] (10) WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO ATTEND TO THE DAILY PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL AND SPECIAL NEEDS OF CHILD[;] (13) THE LEVEL OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO COOPERATE WITH ONE ANOTHER[;] [AND] (16) FATHER’S REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN COUNSELING?

(Mother’s Brief at 5).

When examining a challenge to a custody order, our scope and

standard of review is as follows:

[O]ur 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, _______________________ (Footnote Continued)

2010) (explaining failure to file concise statement with notice of appeal in children’s fast track case constitutes defective notice of appeal; declining to find waiver of issues for technical violation of procedural rules outlined in Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) where appellant failed to file Rule 1925 statement concurrently with notice of appeal but subsequently filed concise statement pursuant to trial court’s order).

-2- J-S01043-15

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.

J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904, 906 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting Collins v.

Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 762,

903 A.2d 1232 (2006)).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Elizabeth K.

Kelly, we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.

(See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 18, 2014, at 4-10) (finding: each

party respects other’s role in Children’s lives and is likely to encourage

continuing contact with other; Mother and Father have each performed basic

parental duties on fairly equal basis since parties’ separation in 2007;

Mother has assumed bulk of responsibility for needs above Children’s basic

necessities, including scheduling and attending parent/teacher conferences

and medical appointments, and providing transportation to and from

extracurricular activities; parties reside approximately four miles apart,

which promotes stability and continuity in community, and insures

-3- J-S01043-15

maintenance of education regardless of custody schedule; Children have

become accustomed to equally shared custody schedule since parties’

separation; there is value in maintaining equal exposure to each party’s

diverse household; Father’s household provides traditional family unit for

Children, who have extended family in Father’s household; there is no

evidence that either party attempts to turn Children against other party;

both parties are invested in maintaining stable and consistent relationship

with Children; Father and Mother have begun co-parenting counseling; both

parties have attended to Children’s daily needs since separation; Mother

displays high degree of support in Children’s interests, including attending

Children’s events, working at concession stands, and coaching R.G.’s soccer

team; proximity of parties’ residences allows for flexibility in crafting custody

arrangement, which will permit Children to foster strong relationship with

both parties; Father changed his work schedule to reduce his work on

weekends; parties’ ability to work together with regard to changes in

custody schedule demonstrates parties’ ability to cooperate for best interests

of Children; it is in Children’s best interest to spend more time with Mother

during week because she is Children’s primary source of support for

homework and extracurricular activities; it is important to keep Father

involved in Children’s lives, especially now that Father’s new work schedule

allows him greater involvement with Children; given this analysis, court

modified prior equal custody arrangement to increase Father’s weekend

-4- J-S01043-15

time with Children and increase Mother’s weekday time with Children). The

record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to

disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/21/2015

-5- Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM Circulated 01/08/2015 03:50 PM