J.L.A. v. A.M. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S18016-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 J.L.A., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. A.M., Appellant No. 3311 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered October 24, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2013-FC-0381 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J. FILED APRIL 22, 2014 ical and full legal custody of their minor daughter, J.M. We affirm. Mother filed this custody action against Father, who is in state prison. On October 24, 2013, following a hearing, the lower court entered an order awarding custody of J.M. to Mother and directing Mother to (1) provide annual school and holiday pictures to Father, (2) permit J.M. to speak to Father once each week on Sunday for 15 November 21, 2013, Father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S18016-14 not permitting Father to attend the custody hearing in person or electronically, and second, the court abused its discretion in granting Mother custody of J.M.1 who petition the court for visitation rights are entitled to a hearing, to notice of this hearing, and to notice of their right to request that they be present at the hearing, by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Vanaman v. Cowgill, 363 Pa.Super. 602, 526 A.2d 1226 (1987). A court need not grant the habeas petition and order the prisoner's presence, but it may not ignore it either. Rather, the court must weigh the costs of a bring-down against the prisoner's interests in presenting testimony in person. Salemo v. Salemo, 381 Pa.Super. 632, 634, 554 A.2d 563, 564 (1989) (citing Jerry v. Francisco, 632 F.2d 252 (3d Cir.1980)). 1 in forma pauperis request for transcripts from the custody proceedings. This appeal is moot, for as the lower court scripts, he did not have a pending appeal. When he filed an appeal, the transcripts were 2 J-S18016-14 concluded that (1) Father failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate in-person attendance in perso attendance by telephone would do more harm than good. order, our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings of the lower 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. With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. This standard requires a caseby-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing of the child. J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa. Super. 2011). The Custody shall delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court previously interpreted this mandate as requiring a trial court to state the reasons for its custody decision prior to the filing of an appeal. 3 J-S18016-14 M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 335 (Pa. Super. 2013). With respect to the custody order, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) provides as follows: (a) Factors. In ordering any form of custody, shall determine the best interest of the considering all relevant factors, giving consideration to those factors which affect the the child, including the following: the court child by weighted safety of (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. (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. 4 J-S18016-14 (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. § 5328(a). these factors in the course of determining the custody issue. each issue raised by Father on appeal fully and completely. We adopt opinion2. Custody order affirmed. 2 There are several handwritten notations on the opinion. They are not ours and do not appear to be by the trial court. We do not adopt these notations. 5 J-S18016-14 Judge Shogan concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/22/2014 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
