WF v. MG – Superior Court – April 29,
2015
majority opinion http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A33006-14o%20-%201021954313415464.pdf?cb=1
dissent http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A33006-14do%20-%201021954313415479.pdf?cb=1
Father appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County granting M.G. primary custody of the parties’ two-year old
daughter (“Child”), granting the parties shared legal custody, and granting
Father partial custody (six days every two weeks). After our review, we vacate
and remand.
Despite multiple findings that point to an award of primary custody to
Father, the trial court awarded Mother primary physical custody and Father
partial custody. After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the
lower court opinions, we conclude that the court’s determination that Mother be
awarded primary physical custody is unreasonable in light of its own factual
findings which are amply supported in the record. See S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2104) (this Court may reject trial court’s
conclusions in child custody matter only if they involve error of law or are
unreasonable in light of factual findings).
The trial court found that although “when considering the mandatory
factors, the findings of fact favor Father more than
Mother.... However, since Father has not been the primary custodian to date, and his complaint for custody did not request
primary custody, a change in primary custody would be disruptive for thechild,
particularly because it would mean placement in child care rather than with a family member...” What the trial failled to consider was the fact
that “Father has not been primary custodian to date is,
first, a function of Mother’s unilateral unreasonable decisions, and second,
not a basis for denying him primary custody where all factors point otherwise.
In addition, the court’s findings do not point to the conclusion that
both Mother and Father are equally fit to act as primary custodian. The court
expressed its concerns about Mother’s allegations of abuse by Father, as well
as her “rigid” parenting style, which obscured a “wholesome, rational
approached to child-rearing.” The court
contrasted Mother’s parenting style with Father’s, characterizing Father’s as
“more natural.”
In determining Child’s best interests, the court’s consideration of the
statutory factors weighed heavily in favor of granting Father primary custody. J.R.M. v. J.E.A.,
33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa. Super. 2011) (when trial court orders form of custody,
best interest of child is paramount). Where a court makes findings consistently
in favor of custody in one party, and then awards custody to the other party,
it must provide valid reasoning to support that decision. Especially with
respect to Mother’s allegations of abuse, which the court specifically found
not credible, we cannot, in good conscience,
sanction this unexplained about-face. Although the court’s findings are
supported in the record, its conclusions are unreasonable in light
of these findings. See
S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014). Because the
majority of the statutory best interest factors favor Father, we conclude that
the court’s order was not based on a reasoned consideration of those factors.
____________________
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
