K.L.W. v. C.J.W. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A28004-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 K. L. W. Appellant v. C. J. W. : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 708 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered February 4, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations at No(s): No. 2015-05718 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and PLATT*, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2016 K.L.W. (“Mother”) appeals from the February 4, 2016 order denying her request to relocate to West Dover, Vermont with her children, C.W., III, a male, born in February 1999; G.W., a female, born in September 2000; P.W., a female, born in February 2003; and T.W., a male, born in May 2005. We affirm. The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/4/16, at 1-3. Our scope and standard of review is as follows: ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A28004-16 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. C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). Upon careful review of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and the applicable law, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The thorough and comprehensive opinions of the Honorable David F. Bortner -2- J-A28004-16 dispose of Mother’s issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order entered by the trial court based on Judge Bortner’s opinions filed February 4, 2016, and April 20, 2016.1 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2016 ____________________________________________ 1 The parties are directed to attach a copy of these opinions in the event of further proceedings in this matter. -3- Circulated 12/09/2016 01:48 PM Circulated 12/09/2016 01:48 PM
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.
