Opinion
J-A06003-21 No. 1047 WDA 2020
04-12-2021
S.U. Appellant v. C.Z.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 31, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD 16-004163-007 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
S.U. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on August 31, 2020, that awarded sole legal custody to determine school choice to C.Z. (Father) for the parties' child, M.Z. (Child), born in January of 2015. A prior order, dated October 5, 2018, remains in effect and governs the parties' shared physical and legal custody of Child for all other matters. After our extensive review, we affirm.
The relevant scope and standard of review in custody matters are as follows:
[T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it. ... However, this broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination. ... Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court's incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not
interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court's factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion.
R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Bovard. Baker , 775 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Super. 2001)). Moreover,
on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.
The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trial court's consideration of the best interest of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion.
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014).
R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations omitted). The test is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court's conclusions. Ketterer v. Seifert , 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its discretion when it ignored undisputed evidence of record and found that certain factors favored Father despite the fact that such a conclusion is unreasonable as shown by the record?Mother's brief at 4.
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and/or abuse its discretion by awarding legal custody for the sole purpose of school choice to Father when the record clearly indicates that the Child's best interest was served by awarding said custody to Mother?
In its opinion filed in response to Mother's appeal, the trial court set forth a factual and procedural history of this case and listed Mother's nine allegations of error contained in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal. The opinion then discusses the custody factors addressed in Mother's Rule 1925(b) statement, explaining the facts it relied upon and its reasons for awarding Father sole legal custody to determine which school Child should attend.
The trial court discussed each of the custody factors contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328, in an opinion attached to its August 31, 2020 order. --------
Essentially, Mother's arguments are requesting that this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence presented. However, 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). Rather, 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 opinion authored by the Honorable Elliot C. Howsie of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated October 30, 2020. We conclude that Judge Howsie's opinion properly disposes of the issues presented by Mother in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinion as our own and affirm the school choice custody order on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/12/2021
Image materials not available for display.