B.L. v. L.S.: How Pennsylvania Courts Handle Contested Custody Agreements

Custody disputes can be extremely challenging for all parties involved. Parents almost always believe that they’re acting in their child’s best interests, but have very different definitions about what that entails. The Pennsylvania courts need to balance these situations carefully by applying the “best interests of the child” standard in custody cases while respecting each parent’s rights. A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision (B.L. v. L.S.) shows how appellate courts review and uphold trial court decisions in contested custody cases.

Background of the case

In this case, the parents shared two young children. Their custody agreement broke down after years of sustained conflict. The father petitioned the court for primary physical custody of the child, alleging that the mother interfered with his parenting time and made decisions that went against the child’s welfare. The trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing. Ultimately, it awarded the father sole legal custody and primary physical custody. This left the mother with limited partial custody.

The mother appealed the decision. She argued that the trial court abused its discretion by favoring the father and failing to give proper weight to her relationship with the children.

The Superior Court’s analysis

In this case, the court began by emphasizing the deferential standard of review. Appellate courts cannot reweigh evidence or second-guess the credibility of the trial court’s findings. Instead, they determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and whether the court properly considered all of the statutory factors.

Under § 5328(a), judges are required to evaluate 16 separate factors. These include:

• The child’s need for stability and continuity.
• The parental duties performed by each parent.
• The availability of extended family
• The level of conflict between the parties
• Each parent’s ability to cooperate and encourage a relationship with the other parent

In this case, the Superior Court ruled that the trial judge had carefully and explicitly weighed each factor in their opinion. The record showed that the father provided a more stable environment, encouraged contact with the child’s mother, and demonstrated better judgment in matters that impacted the children.

Even though the mother presented testimony in her favor, the appellate court noted that the trial court is in the best position to determine her credibility. The Superior Court thus deferred to the trial court on this matter, affirming the change of custody to the father.

Key takeaways from this case 

This case reinforces a key point in Pennsylvania custody law: the parent’s perception of fairness does not control the outcome. Instead, the matter is weighed according to the child’s best interests. In this case, the trial court decided in favor of the father, and there was little that the appeals court was willing to do to change that.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Child Custody Lawyer Today 

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represent the interests of Philadelphia residents who are in a custody battle with their child’s parent. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2023/273-mda-2023.html