Opinion
757 MDA 2021
10-01-2021
H.V. Appellant v. J.V. -L. Appellant
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 12, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-20-05334.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.[*]
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.:
H.V. (Father) appeals from the custody order, entered on May 12, 2021, that awarded Father and J.V.-L. (Mother) shared legal custody of the parties' two children, E.S.V. (born in August of 2016) and E.I.V. (born in May of 2018) (Children). The order also sets forth the physical custody arrangements, granting Mother primary physical custody of Children with Father having partial physical custody of Children every other weekend and every Wednesday from after school/day care until 8 P.M. Following our review, we affirm.
The relevant scope and standard of review in custody matters are 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.V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). Furthermore, we note that:
The discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.
A.H. v. C.M., 58 A.3d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, "[w]hen a trial court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is paramount." S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
Father raises the following two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and ignored the best interests of [] [C]hildren when the [c]ourt awarded primary physical custody to [ ] Mother who admitted having a drug addiction, and when she had previously lied to the [c]ourt about her sobriety, had exposed [] [C]hildren to her supplier and drove with them visibly intoxicated, and failed to produce
any evidence of her current sobriety, other than her self-serving statements, at trial?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and ignored the best interests of [] [C]hildren when the [c]ourt judged Father's ability to safeguard those interests based on his shortcomings as a husband and based on the [c]ourt's mischaracterization of the testimony of both Mother and Father to that effect?
We note that Father's brief does not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which requires that the argument section of the brief "shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part-in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed-the particular point treated therein…." Despite this error, we are not hampered in our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review.
In its opinion filed following the custody hearing held on May 3, 2021, the trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of the case. See Trial Court Opinion and Order, 5/12/2021. That opinion also considered the custody factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 and discussed the facts it relied upon and its reasons for awarding shared legal custody and directing that Mother was to have primary physical custody with Father having partial physical custody of Children. Id. Subsequent to Father's appeal, the trial court filed an opinion to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), providing references to the standard of review and analyzing the issues raised by Father. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 7/7/2021.
Essentially, Father's arguments are requesting that this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, our standard of review does not permit us to function in this manner. Rather, our standard of review requires that we "accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations." C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, 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." E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa. Super. 2011). We do not conclude that that is the situation here. The trial court's findings are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its conclusions are not unreasonable.
We have reviewed the certified record, the parties' briefs, the applicable law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinions authored by the Honorable Jeffrey A. Conrad of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dated May 12, 2021, and July 7, 2021. We conclude that Judge Conrad's opinions properly dispose of the issues presented by Father in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinions as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.