Opinion
1852 EDA 2021 J-A13039-22
09-16-2022
J.F.D. Appellant v. M.A.D. Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2007-26322
MEMORANDUM
PER CURIAM
Appellant, J.F.D. ("Father"), appeals pro se from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which modified the custody agreement between Father and Appellee, M.A.D. ("Mother"), as it relates to their minor children, B.D. and P.D. ("Children"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
[Father and Mother] have two daughters born during their marriage: [B.D., born in 2006, and P.D., born in 2008] (collectively referred to as "minor children"). The parties were married on December 30, 2005, separated on March 20, 2012 and officially divorced on September 13, 2018.
The parties have been embroiled in litigation for over a decade, covering most of the minor children's entire lives. The parties are routinely heard on numerous pleadings including, but not limited to, Petitions to Modify, Petitions for Contempt, Emergency Petitions and Petitions for Protection from Abuse.
It is worth noting that the instant matter tracks closely with
the protracted custody proceedings conducted before the [trial court] in 2017. At that time, on August 31, 2017, the [c]ourt issued comprehensive Findings of Fact consisting of twenty-two (22) pages with an accompanying Order of seventeen (17) Pages.
The 2017 Order represented a significant change from the joint legal and the 50/50 physical custody schedule the parties had been observing pursuant to a 2013 Order and highlighted significant concerns with regard to Father's behavior. The aforementioned 2017 Order provided Mother with sole legal custody and primary physical custody with Father having alternate weekends (Friday through Sunday) and one day during the week from 4-7 PM. Notably, the [trial court] warned that Father's continued efforts to isolate and turn the children against their own Mother were as if he was carefully planting the "seeds of alienation."
Notwithstanding Father's behavior at that time to alienate the children from Mother, the [trial court] noted the following:
Father's role in the process [i.e. legal custody] can be resumed at some point in the future provided that there is demonstrated improvement on his ability to co-parent without the constant need to prove Mother wrong at each turn, imposing judgmental opinions that are not productive to the process, and thriving on producing conflict in the presence of third party professionals; all of which are not in the best interest of the children.
Father appealed the [trial court's] August 31, 2017 Order raising twelve (12) issues on appeal. On June 13, 2018, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the [trial court's] Order…
[T]he parties continued to heavily litigate, not only in custody, but also in Equitable Distribution, Protection from Abuse and other various motions and pleadings.
On February 8, 2019, following an incident that occurred at the children's school where Mother's alcohol use was at issue, the [trial court] ordered Mother to enroll in Soberlink,
a remote alcohol monitoring program. The Order was to ensure the safety of the children as it related to any allegation made regarding Mother's alcohol use and driving. The Soberlink program requires that the user designate a "concerned party," such that any requested changes to the program had to be signed off on by the concerned party. The program further required that there be "involved parties," such that all test results by the user would notify the involved parties. Mother designated her adult son,
Logan Visavati, as her "concerned party," and Father and the [Montgomery Child Advocacy Project attorney who had been appointed as a guardian ad litem for the children] as involved parties.
Thereafter, on or about March 2019, Mother and her concerned party requested that the Soberlink positive BAC threshold be raised from the default zero tolerance to a positive BAC threshold setting of 0.020% (based on her belief that the default zero setting was too sensitive and was providing inaccurate test results). Soberlink accommodated the request upon receiving the signed request forms from both Mother and her concerned party. When the changes were questioned by Father and his then attorney during the 2020 custody proceedings, in order to ensure full disclosure and transparency, the [trial court] entered an Order on February 24, 2020 detailing the aforementioned changes.
Father subsequently agreed to a custody Order on that same date, February 24, 2020. The February 24, 2020 Order restored Father's joint legal custody, added an overnight on the Sunday of Father's alternate weekends and added an overnight visit during the week (an increase of 6 overnights a month overall). It also provided an avenue for Father to improve his co-parenting relationship such that a 50/50 physical custody schedule could resume at the beginning of the 2020-21 academic school year. Notably, neither Father nor his legal counsel included in the Agreed Order any concern or request to change the BAC threshold back to a zero tolerance threshold.
Father did not make any effort to improve the co-parenting relationship and instead, continued to chart his path of contentious litigation, leading to his October 9, 2020 Emergency Petition to Modify-the basis for the instant
appeal. As opposed to working towards a 50/50 schedule, as anticipated, Father instead sought to effectively shut Mother out completely; requesting "full legal and 100% physical custody."
Furthermore, in an ironic projection of his own faults and issues, Father alleged that it was Mother who is alienating the children from Father, that it was Mother who is creating conflict at every turn, and that it was Mother who is placing the children in "imminent danger." Consistent with Father's theme for total and full control, he requested that the minor children "have a break from Mother, [the] court, and its court-ordered professionals."
On June 8, 2020, upon review of an Emergency Petition filed by Mother, the [trial court] discovered that the therapy for the children, specifically directed in the 2017 Order, was not occurring and proceeded to enter an Order directing therapy to be resumed "forthwith."
On October 19, 2020, upon learning from the minor children's therapist, Kristine Kershner, that neither of the children were attending therapy as previously ordered in the August 31, 2017 Order and June 8, 2020 Order, the [trial court] proceeded to issue a Rule to Show Cause upon both parties to show why the [c]ourt should not find them in contempt.
After Father filed his Emergency Petition to Modify on October 9, 2020, the parties appeared…for a Triage Conference on December 11, 2020 and were then scheduled for a two-day protracted hearing before the [trial court] on February 2 and 3, 2021. Both Rule's to Show Cause were also consolidated with Father's Emergency Petition to Modify for the two day protracted hearing.
Notably, the Scheduling order…directed that "[o]nly relevant evidence since the 2/24/20 Agreed Order shall be admitted into the trial." Despite the Order limiting the parties to relevant evidence post February 24, 2020, Father proceeded to submit proposed exhibits numbering close to 1,000 pages in the [c]ourt's "drop box."
The first day of hearings began on February 3, 2021. The
first half of the first day of testimony was directed to the children's therapist Kristine Kershner. In general, the therapist testified that the children were initially going to the scheduled appointments, but as soon as the alternating weekly summer schedule started in June with Father, they began to refuse attendance and Father did not bring them in for sessions. Ms. Kershner clarified that the children's refusal to attend was due to their belief that they did not need to attend therapy anymore and that they "no longer trusted the therapist." Additionally, Ms. Kershner testified to Exhibits "M-1" through "M-3" and conveyed the following:
[P.D.] began re-attending consistently on June 5, 2020, upon order of the court. At that time, increased visitation began to occur with her father, with [P.D.] and her sister reportedly spending alternate weeks with her father. During this time, there was notable clinical change in [P.D.] She became increasingly resistant to attend therapy, stating that she no longer wanted to attend because therapy was causing her a great deal of stress. During [three sessions] she indicates that she wants to stop therapy. When asked to explain her reasons, she shares each time that therapy is very stressful because it is causing her parents to argue more. She states her father does not want her to attend therapy and her mother does, as a result they fight… In addition to this increased resistance to attending therapy, [P.D.] also began to exhibit an increase in negative attitude and behavior toward her mother. This was concerning, as [P.D.] had been working very hard to improve her relationship and communication with her mother prior to this. This had been a focus of her therapy, at her request…
When it was Father's turn to elicit testimony, Father chose to spend much of his time questioning the therapist about the format of the therapy sessions and alleged communication between himself and the therapist. …Father continues to view litigation and accompanying therapy as a means to persuade the court and treating professionals that he is "the end all, be all" for the children's well-being…[.]
Father has steadfastly, if not stubbornly, maintained that pattern of behavior wherein he believes himself more capable of handling issues for the children despite what any court, therapist, or doctor provides. Just as Father exhibited his sense of entitlement and arrogance before Dr. Bellettirie and Dr. Cooke in the 2017 proceedings, Father has since continued to do so with new treating professionals.
Dr. Donna Tonrey was appointed to provide co-parenting therapy for the parties in order to improve their co-parenting relationship on August 9, 2019 after a succession of several other notable mental health professionals in the region. In her letter report dated December 5, 2019 [she stated]:
After the overall experience, and in particular the last session with [Father] on November 1, 2019, I do not believe that any amount of therapy or therapeutic interventions will make a difference with [Father] cooperating with co-parenting. In my experience of working with [Father] and [Mother], [Father] did not demonstrate a regard for the opinion, viewpoint, or authority of others involved in resolving this situation. … From my experience in these sessions, I am not confident that [Father] was intent on taking responsibility for the impact that his words and actions have on effective co-parenting. I do know both
[Father] and [Mother] contribute to the situation, however, [Mother] does appear to have a willingness to take responsibility for the impact her words and actions have on co-parenting.
Father has made it clear that any professional who disagrees with his perspective will either be bullied to the point of quitting, be fired, replaced, or can no longer be trusted.
When it was Father's turn to testify following Ms. Kershner's testimony, considerable time was expended while Father went through the alleged missed Soberlink tests[,] walking through each month on Father's self-created Calendar Exhibit, and providing Father ample time to give his version of Mother's "missed tests."
Following the first day of testimony, Father continued his litigation strategy to wear down the court and opposing counsel with the additional filings of pleadings including a twenty-nine (29) page Motion in Limine (447 pages including attachments) and a sixty-eight (68) page "Statement in Lieu of Testimony" (374 pages including attachments). In both pleadings, Father sought to introduce essentially a full history of his version of the parties' lives both prior to the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and after. Specifically, Father attempted to use his Motion in Limine to introduce allegations of Mother's alcohol use prior to the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020; and his "Statement in Lieu of Testimony" as an effort to put evidence into the record that he failed to testify about during the hearing.
The [trial court] scheduled the parties for a second day of testimony on March 15, 2021, consolidating Father's Motion in Limine. Following argument on the Motion in Limine, the [trial court] took the Motion under advisement and Father was then directed to finish his direct testimony. Instead, Father opted to use the time set aside for his direct to argue with the [c]ourt over the validity of admitting his voluminous "Statement in Lieu of Testimony." Having cited no legal authority upon which to enter such a statement into the record, the [trial court] denied Father's request.
After some further redirection, Father finally resumed his direct testimony. During his direct testimony Father repeatedly testified that he is the minor children's "first line of defense" and that he [did not] feel it was necessary to reach out to the professionals when he credits himself as someone who can handle it on his own. As indicated in the [trial court's] August 31, 2021 Findings, Father showed a complete unwillingness to support therapy for children. On the contrary, he encouraged them not to participate, refused to transport them to scheduled therapy appointments during his custodial time and, worst of all, shared the contents of progress letters the therapists had provided to the [c]ourt with the children. By sharing the contents of the therapist's letters, a self-serving and destructive act, Father successfully undermined any rapport that the therapists worked to build with the children, all while convincing the children, over and over again, that the
therapists cannot be trusted.
Father also remains oblivious that some of his conduct strains the relationship between the two minor children….
By the conclusion of the second scheduled day of testimony, Father had effectively been given one and a half days to testify, through both direct and cross examination.
Having still not heard any testimony from Mother, the [trial court] scheduled a third day of testimony on May 17, 2021. In addition, the [trial court] granted, in part, Father's Motion in Limine such that Father could present limited testimony/evidence concerning Mother's alleged substance abuse from January 1, 2019 to date…. The [trial court] also granted Father's request to have a representative from Soberlink testify and for the representative to provide [the trial court] with the entire file that Soberlink maintained for the parties['] matter.
Recognizing the concurrent emotional and additional behavioral issues that the children were experiencing throughout this litigation, and the testimony from Ms. Kershner that it was not realistic for her to continue, the [trial court] directed that the children begin therapy with Dr. Heather Green on March 22, 2021….
The [trial court] also entered a separate six-page Order on March 22, 2021 appointing additional mental health professionals to treat specific behavioral issues for each child as the parties had been paralyzed by indecision on the selection of professionals for many months.
Before the third day of testimony began, Father filed yet another Motion-a Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion in Limine-which was consolidated with the hearing on May 17, 2021.
Mother finally had her opportunity to testify on May 17, 2021. In sum, Mother testified to Father's refusal to follow court orders and how he allows the children to do what "they believe is right" as opposed to what a court order says.
Mother stated that it was her impression that Father instilled in the children that they have the choice do to what they want to do, instead of what Mother, the court, or any treating professional may tell them. Father has gone to extensive effort to convince the children that they do not have to do what they are told so long as they "do what's right." As further evidence of Father's disregard of Mother, the [trial c]ourt, and the treating professionals, on the February 23, 2021 CHOP Intake Questionnaire for [B.D.], Father lied in reporting that documentation of the child's legal custody arrangements "[did] not apply."
In contrast to Father's attitude toward the treating professionals, Mother testified that she has been working with therapists on how to better parent and what to do when the children become defiant and purport to be in charge.
Finally, Mother provided her own Exhibit regarding the alleged missed Soberlink tests, with accompanying emails and supporting documentation, and testified that the alleged missed tests directly correlated to dates when the children were in Father's custody or were only missed by minutes (to which she followed up with a compliant test). Mother showed that she had not failed any Soberlink tests since March 1, 2020, that the children are obsessed with the testing, and asserted that further use of the Soberlink device would continue to be destructive and unproductive.
At the conclusion of the third day, the [trial court] scheduled a fourth day of testimony to enable the representative from Soberlink to testify on June 8, 2021.
On June 7, 2021 (one day before the fourth and final day of testimony), in typical fashion to remove anyone who disagrees with him, Father filed a "Petition for Special Declarative Relief and to Disqualify the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford." Father alleged that the [trial judge] was [not] impartial and should be considered a material witness to the parties' case due to the [trial judge's] remarks that the [c]ourt was of the impression that the parties had entered into an agreement following the BAC threshold change in Mother's Soberlink program. Notwithstanding Father's efforts to delay the conclusion of the proceedings, the June 8, 2021 date to allow the Soberlink representative to testify
remained as scheduled and both Father and Mother's counsel had ample opportunity to ask questions.
As ordered, Soberlink also provided [the trial court] and the parties with their complete file….Despite Father's fishing expedition to find fault in Mother's Soberlink tests, three things were notable from the testimony of the Soberlink representative: (1) The representative testified that while he recognized that tampering does happen from time to time, that has not happened in this case; (2) Soberlink can identify and evaluate a series of positive tests to detect if the results have been compromised, but looking at the data, nothing appeared wrong with the results; (3) on average, a Soberlink client would utilize the device for four months. Mother had been using the Soberlink device for over two years, an extremely uncommon time period for any parent in a custody case according to the Soberlink representative.
At the conclusion of the Soberlink representative's testimony, Father and Mother's counsel were given an opportunity to present closing argument and directed to submit their own proposed findings with regard to the custody factors in Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5328(a) by June 23, 2021. The [trial court] made arrangements for the child interviews to occur the next day, June 9, 2021, while the children were at school, in a neutral setting, via Zoom. The parties were directed to present areas of inquiry to address with the children to Chambers, in advance, to enable their participation in the interviews.
A complete review of the children's interviews was contained in the August 9, 2021 Findings of Fact. The children's preference during the interview was not "well-reasoned." The children's behavior could best be described as a desperate effort to satisfy their Father's "agenda," excluding Mother and placing him as the martyr for the family's issues and concerns. As a result, the [trial court] placed reduced weight on the children's testimony, especially in light of the inescapable alienation at play.
On June 11, 2021, the [trial court] denied Father's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on May 5, 2021. There was no
need for additional testimony as Father was provided with ample time to present his case within the four days of hearings and, furthermore, he was given the opportunity to make closing argument and submit written Findings of Fact. Lastly, having no basis in which the [trial judge] would be called as a "witness" in the matter, and thus lacking any foundation, Father's Petition for Declarative Relief and to Disqualify the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford was denied on June 16, 2021.
Within a month after the record closed, and before the [trial court] could issue [its] August 9, 2021 Order and accompanying Findings of Fact, Father filed an Emergency Petition to Modify on July 6, 2021 and an Emergency Petition for Special Relief on July 22, 2021, repeating nearly identical allegations as had just been testified to during the four (4) days of testimony….(Trial Court Opinion, 10/12/21, at 1-17) (footnotes, internal citations, and some quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).
By order dated August 9, 2021 (and filed August 10, 2021), the trial court issued a custody order granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of Children. The court granted Father partial physical custody consisting of every other weekend and, on the Tuesday following and Thursday preceding Mother's weekend, custody from after school through 7:00 PM. On September 9, 2021, Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
I. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion by failing to fulfill its obligation and responsibility to create a complete record in a custody case so that a comprehensive review can be conducted on appeal
as follows:
a. By refusing to allow Father to submit into evidence the complete history of Mother's alcohol abuse so as to understand the severity of her problem?
b. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and testimony he sought to introduce that was relevant to the issue of custody and not duplicative, including evidence pertaining to Mother's substance, physical and emotional abuses of the children, from May 24, 2017 to February 24, 2020?
c. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and testimony pertaining to 14 of the 16 custody factors, from February 24, 2020 to present, because Father's time for testimony and evidence expired according to the [c]ourt's artificial time clock?
d. If time was truly of the essence, then the [t]rial [c]ourt erred when it precluded Father from submitting a written statement in lieu of oral testimony that would have been subject to cross-examination because the [t]rial [c]ourt's manufactured time restraints effectively rendered Father an unavailable witness pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 804?
e. By limiting Father's questioning of the Soberlink witness and by refusing to admit both parties' communication with Soberlink, which would have disclosed Mother's frequent attempts to circumvent Soberlink procedures and deceive the [c]ourt?
f. By limiting Father from testifying on redirect after being cross-examined by Mother's counsel and thereby, blocking Father's right to rehabilitate his testimony?
g. By repeatedly stating on the record, that he "has presided over numerous protracted proceedings involving the parties over the past 5 years including, but not limited to, custody and PFA's (as recently as 2020 and 2019 respectively) and, as a result, is
extremely aware of the cumulative history of the case," which position essentially insulates the [t]rial Judge from appellate review because what is in the [t]rial Judge's memory is not part of the record, and as a result, the [t]rial [c]ourt excluded relevant evidence occurring over more than four (4) years of the children's lives?
II. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in relying on an ex parte letter submitted to the [c]ourt by the children's therapist, Dr. Green, without giving Father the opportunity to cross-examine the therapist and/or even have access to the letter?
III. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying summarily Father's Petition for Declaratory Relief and to Disqualify the [t]rial Judge and that was docketed on June 7, 2021, especially when the record does not support the conclusion there was an agreement regarding Mother's unilateral alteration to the Soberlink Device threshold?
IV. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and committed an abuse of discretion when it terminated Mother's obligation to continue to use the Soberlink Device, especially given the evidence of record that Mother unilaterally increased the threshold for alcohol detection making her negative tests meaningless and in so doing, ignored the children's safety?
V. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion when it failed to give considerable weight to Mother's alcohol abuse and thereby avoided analyzing factors that should have been given weighted consideration pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)?
VI. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother the sole discretion to name a third party for the children to contact regarding Mother's drinking and driving, especially when the record was clear that Mother would name her adult son, and that Father had legitimate concerns about the adult son's ability to manage Mother's drinking?
VII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in not asking the children critically relevant questions provided by Father to the [c]ourt as per its June 8, 2021 request, and in dismissing the credible concerns and reasonable preferences of the children?
VIII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in making credibility determinations for Mother and Father that are not supported by the record and which appear to be a blatant attempt by the [t]rial [c]ourt to render its decision impervious to review on the issue of credibility alone?
IX. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in making numerous Findings of Fact that are not supported by the record, including but not limited to the finding that Father allegedly engaged in conduct to alienate the children from Mother despite the abundance of evidence in the record that the children are estranged from Mother and want to reside with Father as a result of Mother's abuse of the children and her inability to function as a parent due to her alcohol abuse?
X. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying Father's Motion for Reconsideration despite the [c]ourt's May 11, 2021 Order to hear arguments for the same?
XI. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in finding Father in contempt of the Orders dated June 8, 2020, the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and section 5(f) of the March 22, 2021 [order], especially since Mother does not have clean hands with respect to the Orders of Custody and participation in therapy?
XII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in rendering a decision that is based on its ill will and bias towards Father, which is palpable in the record, rather than what is in the best interests of the children?
XIII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother sole legal custody of the children when the record is replete with incidents of Mother's poor judgment regarding the children, including but not limited to those occasions where Mother elected to consume alcohol to excess when with the children and to endanger the children's safety by driving a vehicle with the children inside after imbibing alcohol?(Father's Brief at 10-20) (issues renumbered).
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). This Court has consistently held:
[T]he 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.Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citation omitted). In addition:
Although we are given a broad power of review, we are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating the court's order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if the court's judgment is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support the court's findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence.M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 18-19 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).
"With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being of the child." M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 334 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710, 68 A.3d 909 (2013) (quoting J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa.Super. 2011)). Section 5328(a) sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must consider in awarding custody:
§ 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 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)(1) and (2) (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.
(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child's emotional needs.
(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
(12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.
(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's household.
(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's household. (16)Any other relevant factor.23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16).
After a thorough review of the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford, we conclude Father's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 20-54) (finding: (1) Father had ample opportunity to present his case-in-chief regarding custody modification and was appropriately prohibited from re-litigating matters not presently before court, and prohibited from presenting cumulative evidence; (2) Father waived challenge to admissibility of therapist letters by not raising issue before trial court; moreover, court recognized that Father's actions in inappropriately sharing court records with Children necessitated sealing of therapist letter report; (3) Father did not raise substantial doubt about trial judge's ability to preside impartially; (4) court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's obligation to use Soberlink alcohol monitoring device; (5) trial court considered and weighed all custody factors, including parties' history of alcohol and drug use; (6) court did not abuse its discretion in giving Mother opportunity to name third party for Children to contact if they are concerned about her alcohol consumption; (7) court did not err in placing reduced weight on Children's preference given Father's routine alienating behavior; court noted that Children's in camera testimony exhibited desperate attempt to satisfy and please Father and forward his agenda; (8) court's credibility decisions were within its discretion; (9) trial court's findings of fact, including finding that Father engaged in alienating behavior, were supported by testimony from treating professionals; (10) order denying reconsideration was not reviewable on appeal; (11) Father engaged in contemptuous behavior volitionally and with wrongful intent, especially with respect to his interference with Children's therapy; (12) trial court based its decision on best interests of Children, not on ill will and bias toward Father; (13) court did not err in granting Mother sole legal custody because Father has demonstrated continuous interference with emotional and physical welfare of Children). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion, and direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court's October 12, 2021 opinion to future filings involving this appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.