NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE ZARO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JESSICA LEE ZARO :
:
Appellant : No. 2451 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered September 15, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
2023-07327-CU
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE ZARO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JESSICA LEE ZARO :
:
Appellant : No. 2717 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered September 15, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
2023-07327-CU
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 17, 2026 Appellant Jessica Lee Zaro (“Mother”) appeals from the September 15, 2025 orders entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas that granted Mother and Appellee Christopher Wayne Zaro (“Father”) shared legal and physical custody of their children, ten-year-old C.Z. and eight-year-old A.Z. (collectively, “Children”). Mother raises challenges to the weight of the
2
evidence. Upon review, we affirm because the record supports the trial court’s findings.
The following factual and procedural history is relevant to this appeal.
Father and Mother were married in January 2012 and are the biological parents to Children. Additionally, the parties had a stillborn baby in 2014 and suffered numerous miscarriages after A.Z.’s birth, which put a strain on the marriage. Mother filed for divorce on January 6, 2023. The parties remained living together in the marital home until September 2023, which caused much conflict. Mother filed numerous petitions for exclusive possession, which were denied.
On September 19, 2023, the parties agreed to an order granting Mother exclusive possession of the marital residence for four months. The parties also agreed to a temporary order granting Mother primary physical custody of Children and Father partial physical custody of Children every other weekend and several days a week after school. Father agreed to this, anticipating a custody trial within a few months. On September 22, 2023, Father filed a custody complaint.
Father currently lives in the marital home with his girlfriend. Father attended college at the Citadel and then served as a second Lieutenant in the US Marine Corp, including three combat deployments, until he was honorably discharged from the military after a helicopter crash. Father currently works for the family business with his father and brother as a property manager for
3
commercial real estate. Father has a license to carry firearms, owns numerous firearms, and hunts.
Mother went to college and obtained a degree in fashion design, and she currently works as a fashion designer with a flexible work schedule. Mother lives approximately seven minutes away from Father in the same school district.
In October 2023, Mother filed a petition for protection from abuse (“PFA”) against Father, which the trial court denied after a hearing. Additionally, Mother contacted the police in response to Father calling her 63 times in a 39-minute period after she denied him a phone call with Children. Mother’s report prompted the police to charge Father with Harassment, and Father pled guilty to the charge a few days before the custody hearing.
After numerous delays, the trial court held a four-day custody trial in July 2025. Father presented testimony from himself; Paul Comstock, Father’s friend; Sandra Miller Lee, neighbor; and Theresa Deeney, Father’s girlfriend (“Girlfriend”). Mother presented testimony from herself; Stephanie Harris, neighbor; and Breanna Burgess, Mother’s sister. Notably, both children expressed that they loved both parents but wished to spend more time with Father.
On August 19, 2025, after considering the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) custody factors, the court awarded Mother and Father joint legal and 50/50 shared physical custody on a 2-2-3-day schedule.
4
Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1) Whether the trial court’s custody modification decision is erroneous and must be vacated where the court failed to conduct the required analysis under Kayden’s Law—requiring factors “which affect the safety of the child” in a custody action be given greater emphasis—and to seriously weigh evidence establishing Father’s cavalier attitude toward firearm safety and storage, his decisions allowing the Children to ride motorized bikes or in cars without proper protection, his disturbing negative behavior toward animals, and his anger, abuse and harassment of Mother?
2) Whether the trial court’s custody modification decision is erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion where the trial court failed to consider undisputed evidence of Father’s repeated violations of court orders in circumstances where the evidence was directly relevant to at least two custody factors regardless of whether Father was held in contempt?
3) Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by granting Father shared physical custody in a manner antithetical to the Children’s best interests where all of the applicable, non-neutral factors favored Mother, thereby establishing her as the parent best equipped to meet the Children’s needs?
Mother’s Br. at 5-6.
This Court reviews a custody determination “for an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad.” S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014). This Court 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). This Court must accept the findings of the trial court that the evidence supports. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 400.
5
Importantly, “[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).
The Custody Act requires a trial court to “determine the best interest of the child by considering” all the Section 5328(a) custody factors when “ordering any form of custody” and further requires the court to give “substantial weighted consideration” to the factors which affect the safety of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). Moreover, the court must “delineate the reasons for its decision[.]” Id. at § 5323(d). When reviewing child custody matters and the trial court’s consideration of the Section 5328(a) custody factors, our “paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” is “the best interests of the child.” Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (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.” D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566, 572 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted). “Common sense dictates that trial courts should strive, all other things being equal, to assure that a child maintains a healthy
6
relationship with both of his or her parents, and that the parents work together to raise their child.” S.C.B. v. J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 916 (Pa. Super. 2019). Finally, “[i]n an action regarding the custody of the child between the parents of the child, there shall be no presumption that custody should be awarded to a particular parent” and “no party shall receive preference based on gender[.]” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5327(a); id. at 5328(b).
***
In her first issue, Mother avers that the trial court erred when it failed to give substantial weighted consideration to the factors which affect Children’s safety. Mother’s Br. at 22-23. Mother argues that the trial court failed to consider the evidence presented by Mother that: (1) Father does not store his firearms in an appropriate and safe manner as evidenced by pictures of guns laying around the house; (2) Father is cruel to animals including shooting squirrels with a BB gun and decapitating a snake and showing Children, as well as neglecting his chickens; (3) Father’s girlfriend drove children home from school without making them use seatbelts and/or booster seats and that Children did not wear helmets while biking and using a motorized scooters at paternal grandparents’ farm, and (4) Father has exhibited abusive behavior towards Mother. Id. at 23-32.
The record belies Mother’s claims. Upon review, the trial court did apply the mandated weighted consideration to each safety factor and, having done so, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish any threat to Children’s safety and found the factors to be neutral.
7
First, the court considered Mother’s testimony that, during their divorce proceedings, Father began to leave firearms in plain sight in an effort to intimidate her and that the firearms posed a risk to Children. Trial Ct. Op., 2/17/26, at 9 (unpaginated). The court found that “Father has extensive experience in handling firearms and possesses a license to carry” and noted that “none of the prior custody orders or special provisions raised safety concerns regarding the numerous weapons in Father’s possession or the need to secure them.” Id. at 9-10. The court found Father’s testimony credible that he maintained a safe in the basement where he stored most of his weapons, that any firearms that were not secure were disarmed and disassembled and in the process of being cleaned. Id. at 10. Further, the trial court considered pictures of the firearms submitted by Mother and observed that they were not in the basement but were partially disassembled, had empty magazines, and had cleaning fluid located near the firearms. The court opined that “the safety of [] Children is the most crucial in custody matters and [the court] gave the appropriate weighted consideration as needed to apply the [b]est [i]nterest of the [c]hildren standard.” Id. at 11.
The court also considered Father’s treatment of animals and found “there was no testimony that Father ever abused or harmed a domestic animal.” Id. at 7. The court found Father’s testimony to be credible that he owns a dog and two cats and has never harmed a domestic animal. Id. Father admitted that he hunted squirrels and that he decapitated a snake and showed Children, but the trial court did not give Father’s testimony much weight. The
8
court observed that Father “served in the military touring Afghanistan and Iran, where he was likely to encounter snakes, rats[,] and other wild creatures that he disposed of by killing them.” Id. The court expressed displeasure that Father showed Children the decapitated snake but found “this single incident is not sufficient to show that Father’s behaviors towards non-domestic creatures like a snake would be harmful to Children.” Id. at 7-8.
Next, the court considered Mother’s testimony that Children were unsafe because they were riding in Girlfriend’s car without appropriate car seats and rode their bikes without helmets. Id. at 9. However, the court credited both Father and Girlfriend’s testimony that they now make the Children wear helmets when they are riding bikes at their paternal grandparent’s farm and that Girlfriend only drove Children home one time without appropriate car seats. Id. The court found “based on the evidence presented by both sides, Father and Father’s paramour who cohabitates with Father have remedied Mother’s concerns related to the Children wearing seatbelts and helmets.” Id.
Finally, the court considered that Mother filed a PFA petition against Father but noted that the PFA court denied the petition after a hearing. Id. at 8, 15. The court also considered that Father made verbal attacks to Mother and found “[w]hile the [c]ourt affords such evidence the appropriate weight, it does not find issues between the parties themselves and not pertaining to [] Children dispositive in this matter.” Trial. Ct. Op., 8/19/25, at 3. The court considered that Father pled guilty to Harassment for calling Mother numerous times “because he could not reach Mother and presumed Mother was
9
deliberately withholding [C]hildren from talking with him.” Trial Ct. Op., 2/17/26, at 8. The court found that “Father’s behavior did not rise to the level of assaultive behavior – there was no indication that Father had ever been violent.” Id.
The court concluded, “[i]t is clear that there was obvious discord between the parties; however, there was not sufficient evidence presented by either party that [] Children would be unsafe with either parent.” Id. at 7. The trial court’s findings are supported in the record and we decline to usurp the court’s credibility determinations or reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
***
In her second issue, Mother avers that the trial court failed to consider undisputed evidence of Father’s repeated violation of court orders. Mother’s Br. at 33. Specifically, Mother argues that the trial court should have considered 1) Father’s refusal to agree to enroll Children in counseling; 2) Father’s refusal to meet at the designated meeting space for the custody exchange, and 3) the fact that Father was held in contempt in a related child support action for failing to reimburse Mother for extracurricular activities. Id. at 33-36.
In its Rule 1925(b) opinion, the trial court acknowledged that both parties filed petitions for contempt and noted that both were resolved by agreement of the parties. The court emphasized that there was never a finding of contempt against Father in the custody proceedings and found “any
10
other evidence of Father disobeying orders was insufficient to show a negative impact on the welfare of Children.” Trial Ct. Op., 2/17/26, at 11.
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did consider the allegations of contempt against Father but chose to give them little weight as there was never a finding of contempt against Father. The record supports the trial court’s findings and, once again, we decline to reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion.
***
In Mother’s final issue, she avers that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Father shared physical custody of Children because all the non- neutral Section 5328(a) custody factors favored Mother. Mother’s Br. at 36. Mother argues that because three custody factors favored Mother, none of the factors favored Father, and the rest were neutral, that it is in Children’s best interest to award her sole primary physical custody of Children. Id. at 36-37. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Here, the trial court found that three custody factors favored Mother, namely factor 1: parental duties performed by each parent; factor 9: which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing relationship with Children; and factor 10: which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational, and special needs of Children. Trial Ct. Op., 2/17/26, at 5. The trial court also found that Father agreed to Mother having primary physical custody pending a custody trial within four months and did not anticipate the repeated delays and
11
continuances of the trial. The trial court found that “the delay severely disadvantaged Father, as Mother has assumed the majority of the parenting responsibilities during that period.” Id. at 6. The court further found that these factors might have weighted neutrally if Mother did not have primary physical custody since September 2023 and opined that “if Father were allowed to share primary physical custody, Father could meet the daily, physical, and emotional needs of Children as well.” Id. For these reasons, the trial court placed less weight on these factors, even though they favored Mother. Once again, we decline to reweigh the evidence and, therefore, discern no error.
***
In sum, the trial court did not err when it entered the September 15, 2025 custody orders awarding joint legal custody and shared physical custody of Children to Mother and Father after considering the Section 5328(a) custody factors. Mother’s challenges to the weight of the evidence fail to garner her relief. The record supports the trial court’s findings and, therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion.
Orders affirmed.
12
Date: 8/17/2026