J.M. v. B.M. (concurring and dissenting memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A06032-21 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 J.M. v. B.M. Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1082 WDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD17-001973-002 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J. CONCURRING/DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2021 I concur with the Majority’s determination relating to Father’s first two issues and that portion of its decision regarding the parties’ shared physical custody of Child. However, I dissent from the Majority’s reversal of the trial court’s order awarding Mother sole legal custody of Child. The Majority includes numerous citations to the trial court’s decision that reveal the power and control that Father exerts over Mother. Moreover, many of the trial court’s statements in response to the section 5328(a) custody factors, in particular, its discussion in response to factor 13, and its statement that a shared legal custody arrangement is simply untenable, support the trial court’s conclusion that Mother should have sole legal custody. Simply because both parties contribute to the toxic dynamics of their relationship, which the Majority couples with the parties’ ability to perform daily parental duties, this J-A06032-21 is not sufficient to overcome the trial court’s decision to award sole legal custody to Mother. The trial court’s judgment is not manifestly unreasonable. Moreover, the record certainly contains evidence to support the court’s findings. Thus, I would affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety. -2-
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.
