Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03051 AMANDA TOWNE n/k/a, : THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AMANDA DACEY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : No. 2020-03051 CIVIL TERM : COREY TOWNE, : Defendant : IN CUSTODY OPINION Smith, J., July 23, 2021 FINDINGS Mother, Amanda Dacey (formerly known as Amanda Towne), and Father, Corey Towne, were married on February 5, 2015. Their union produced one child, A.L.H. (YOB 2014)(“Daughter”), and G.L.H. (YOB 2017)(“Son”). The parties separated on April 7, 2020. A final decree in divorce was granted at this docket on December 11, 2020. Several factors led to the parties’ separation. Mother and Father met while serving in the military. As a result of their service, both parties suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder. Mother is under the care of a psychologist and psychiatrist, and Father has recently started seeing a counselor. Both parties underwent 1 psychological evaluations at our direction. Child was born in Oklahoma while the parties’ were still engaged in active military service. Upon release from the military, Mother and Father moved to Levittown, Bucks County, to be close to Father’s family. In 2019, either one or both of the parties decided they no longer wanted to live in Bucks County, and chose to move to Cumberland 2 County to be close to some friends with whom they had served. The parties relocated to Cumberland County in September 2019. By April 2020, the parties’ relationship had deteriorated, culminating in an argument on April 7, 2020. At that time, Father left the marital residence and returned to his father’s house in Levittown. Mother filed for divorce and custody on April 22, 2021. 1 See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 and Defendant’s Exhibit 3, both admitted under seal. 2 Mother testified that Father wanted to leave Levittown because “he was having issues with his family,” and Mother believed that the area was not safe. Father testified that he moved to Cumberland County because Mother wanted to move and he wanted her to be happy. Page 1 of 16 On April 29, 2020, Mother filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse, alleging that 3 Father had hit Child and put his hands around Child’s neck. A Temporary Protection from Abuse Order was signed at that time. Father filed a Petition for Emergency Relief at this docket on April 30, 2020, alleging that Mother had stopped taking her psychiatric medication, that Mother had left the marital home in a state of disarray, and that she was withholding the Child unless Father agreed to supervised periods of custody only. On May 12, 2020, the parties signed a stipulation, where by the parents agreed to share physical custody of Child. In exchange for Mother withdrawing the Protection from Abuse action, Father agreed for his periods of custody to be supervised. On June 25, 2020, Father filed a Petition for Emergency Relief, requesting that the supervision requirement be lifted, stating that the Children and Youth Services and Upper Allen Police Department’s investigations into Father’s alleged abuse had returned unfounded. Father also requested he be awarded primary physical custody, alleging that Mother had moved out of the marital residence, and was living with friends in an environment unsafe for Child. A hearing was held on the matter on July 6, 2020, at which time we denied Father’s request for primary custody, but granted his request to remove the supervision requirement. The parties have been operating under that Order since that time. This case was originally called for trial on October 29, 2020. At that time, the parties agreed to maintain shared physical custody until Child entered kindergarten in the fall of 2021. As such, the matter was continued to July 7, 2021 to prepare for Child’s entry to kindergarten. The parties agree that they would maintain shared custody if they lived closer to each other. As there is a 2 hour drive between the parties’ residences, we will need to determine where Child will attend school, and, therefore, which parent will have primary physical custody during the school year. Both parties agree that they should share physical custody in the summer months on a week on/week off alternating schedule. Mother lives in Carlisle with her paramour Daniel Bachman. Mother’s residence is a 2-story townhome with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Child has his own bedroom and bathroom in the home. Child has a number of friends in Mother’s neighborhood. Mother recently commenced employment with Pennsylvania Gastroenterology in Camp Hill, working as a member of the office staff. Her primary duties include communicating with insurance companies for referrals and approvals and checking in patients. Mother’s previous job was working the same capacity for Jackson Seiglebaum Gastroenterology, where she was employed for 2 years. Mother works Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 3 See Petition for Protection from Abuse, Towne v. Towne, No. 2020-03087 (April 30, 2020). Page 2 of 16 While Mother is working, Child attends daycare at Kindercare in Camp Hill. The daycare center is across the street from Mother’s office. Child has been attending Kindercare since the parties moved to Cumberland County, and Child has developed friendships there. Child attends daycare Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. After daycare, Mother indicated that she likes for Child to play outside, and that sometimes they will go fishing or to the park. Mother assists Child in practicing his penmanship and they enjoy movie nights with documentaries or educational films. Mother indicates that Child goes to bed between 7:00 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. during her custodial periods because they have to wake up early. Mother’s family lives in Massachusetts. They visit a few times a year, and Facetime with Child regularly. For support, Mother relies on her paramour, Daniel Bachman. Mr. Bachman is a UPS driver with “on-call hours.” Mother met Mr. Bachman in May 2020, shortly after the parties separated. He met Child in June 2020, and then moved in with Mother and Child in July 2020. Mr. Bachman voluntarily completed the Positive Parenting course and a co-parenting course in preparation for this matter. Mother stated that Mr. Bachman has bonded with Child, and that he is a “strong male figure” in Child’s life. If both Mother and Mr. Bachman are unavailable to care for Child, Mother’s friend Jasmine is also available to assist. In addition to her own family, Mother testified that she has been in contact with Father’s maternal grandmother, and that Child speaks with Father’s maternal grandmother during Mother’s custodial periods. Mother indicated that Father does not speak with his maternal grandmother. Mother also indicated that Father does not speak with his mother (Paternal Grandmother), and that she does not communicate with her either. Mother stated that she is cordial with the rest of Father’s family. Mother was Ordered to obtain a psychiatric evaluation in connection with this matter. As a result of the evaluation, Mother was Ordered to continue under the care of her current psychiatrist and psychologist. Mother sees her psychologist every 1 to 2 weeks, and her psychiatrist every 4 to 6 months. Mother was previously on anti- depressant medication, but has recently stopped taking that medication as she is planning to conceive a child with Mr. Bachman. Mother indicated that in lieu of her medication, she is seeing her counselor more frequently. Mother’s psychiatric evaluator also recommended that she take parenting classes. She completed improving behavior at home, positive parenting and co- parenting programs, as did Mr. Bachman. Mother’s primary concern is that Father does not take his caretaking responsibilities seriously. Mother indicated that she has always been Child’s primary Page 3 of 16 caretaker, and that she is responsible for getting Child to his medical and counseling appointments. Mother is concerned about Child’s behavioral outbursts, particularly around the time of custodial exchanges. She also indicated that Child’s eating habits need improvement, and that Child is underweight as a result of his selective eating. Mother testified that when she tries to communicate with Father about these issues, he is non-responsive or believes that what Mother perceives as issues are not issues. Mother stated that though she tells Father about Child’s appointments, Father has never attended any appointments with Child and he has not contacted any of his providers. Mother testified that Father was rarely alone with Child during their marriage. Mother is seeking primary custody during the school year. She believes that Child will have more educational opportunities in Carlisle, and that she is more capable of providing a stable home environment than Father. In support of her position, she stated that she gives Child chores to do at home and maintains a very structured environment. Mother believes that Father does not employ the same structure in his home as she does in hers. Mother believes that Child wishes to remain in Carlisle, and believes that Carlisle is a nicer area with a lower crime rate. Mother has enrolled Child in St. Patrick’s School in Carlisle. The kindergarten program at St. Patrick’s is full day, and they would also provide before-school and after- school care. Mother would drop Child off at school at 7:15 a.m. and pick him up at 5:00 p.m. Child would be able to attend St. Patrick’s through eighth grade. The current school year commences August 23, 2021. Mother did not consult with Father prior to enrolling Child at St. Patrick’s. Mother proposes that she exercise primary physical custody during the school year, and that Father will exercise partial physical custody on alternate weekends. Mother proposes that the parties will enjoy shared physical custody on an alternating weekly schedule during the summer. Father lives in Langhorne, Bucks County in a 2 bedroom apartment, where child has his own bedroom, that he helped to decorate. A typical day for Child on Father’s custodial period begins at 6:15 a.m., when Child wakes up and helps Father make breakfast. Father drops Child off at daycare at 7:30 a.m. and picks him up at 5:15 p.m., after which they make dinner together. After dinner, they play outside or go to the community pool. Child watches some television before bed at 8:00 p.m. Aside from Child, Father lives alone. Father is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership near his home. He is a team lead and specializes in heavy diagnosis. Father works Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m and every fourth Saturday. Father indicates that his Saturday is flexible if need be. Page 4 of 16 Because of Father’s work schedule, Child attends daycare at First Presbyterian Church of Levittown. Father’s step-grandmother is the director of the daycare, and Father’s sister, Cameron, is a teacher at the daycare. Child has a number of friends at the daycare and in his neighborhood. The majority of Father’s family lives in the Levittown-Langhorne area. Father’s father (Paternal Grandfather), step-mother, and youngest sister (Cameron) live in Levittown. Father lived with them as well upon vacating the marital residence, but has since moved into his own apartment. Paternal Grandfather testified on Father’s behalf in this matter. He testified that Child is his “buddy,” and that they have always had a special bond. He further testified that they see Child and Father every week on Sundays for dinner and a few times during Father’s custodial periods. They go camping together as well. Paternal Grandfather indicated that he, his wife, and their daughter are available to help watch Child if Father needs them. Father’s brother, Kyle, lives in the same apartment complex as Father with his wife and their infant daughter. Father stated that they visit with his brother’s family often and that Child loves his new baby cousin. Father indicated that his sister-in-law is a stay-at-home mother and can assist him if there is an emergency where he cannot get home for Child. Father’s mother (Paternal Grandmother) lives in New Jersey, about a 10 to 15 minute drive from Father’s home, and she sees Father in Child once or twice a month. Paternal Grandfather testified that Father has had a difficult relationship with his mother, but it is getting better. Father’s eldest sister, Emily, lives in Buffalo, New York, and visits with Father and Child when she is in the area. Father was also Ordered to complete a psychological evaluation in connection with this matter. Father’s evaluation was delayed because the evaluator did not have all of his medical records from the Veterans Affairs Administration. The evaluator recommended that Father complete the same parenting programs as Mother. Father did not do so because, in his belief, the programs were exclusive to Alternative Behavioral Consultants, and, as he was living out of the area, he did not need to complete them, although the report clearly says “or a substantially similar course of instruction.” Father stated that he has recently commenced therapy once a week to discuss his stressors and how to cope with them. He indicated that the counseling sessions have helped him in his co-parenting relationship with Mother as well. Father denies Mother’s assertion that she was the primary caretaker during their marriage. Father stated that during the parties’ marriage, they shared responsibilities, and that even though Child’s daycare is across the street from Mother’s office, he would often pick Child up from daycare so Mother could go home and rest after work. Father also stated that Child has chores at his house, but they are less stringent than Mother’s Page 5 of 16 chores because he is only 5 years old. Child’s chores with Father include feeding his goldfish, putting his clothes in the hamper and cleaning his room. Father indicated that his family did not give him more difficult chores until he was 7 or 8 years old, and he plans to do the same with Child. Father’s primary concern is that Mother has no support system in Cumberland County. Father elaborated by saying that Jasmin works full time and Mr. Bachman has an unpredictable schedule. Despite Mother’s assertions that Father left Bucks County to “get some breathing room” from his family, Father indicated that he had always intended to stay near his family, and moved to Cumberland County so that Mother would be happy. Father believes his home is in a safe area and it has a lot of amenities for Child. Father stated that with his family nearby, if there is ever an issue with Child and Father is unavailable, there is always someone who can be at Child’s school within 10 minutes. Father is also concerned that Mother does not share information with him. He stated that every time he has asked for information, it leads to a fight with Mother, so he has stopped asking about Child’s medical care and counseling. Father indicated that although Mother provided him with a copy of Child’s insurance card, she did not permit Father to have access to the account to obtain information about the insurance program. Father further supports his contention by stating that Mother has sought to limit his telephone calls to Child during his non-custodial periods because they are “too disruptive.” As such, Father only speaks with Child 3 times per week during Mother’s custodial periods. Father is seeking primary physical custody of Child during the school year, and shared physical custody during the summer. He believes that Child being close to family is in Child’s best interest. Father lives in the Neshaminy School District, and Child would attend Herbert Hoover Elementary School. Child’s school is within walking distance to Father’s home. Child is 5 years old. Because of his young age, he was not interviewed for the purposes of this hearing. In connection with the above-referenced Children and Youth Services investigation, Child was enrolled in counseling with Drew Krantz at the Children’s Resource Center. He is currently seeing him once a month for play therapy. Mother indicated that the counseling sessions have helped with Child’s behavior during the custodial exchanges. Mother reported that Child is often withdrawn and has bursts of anger, to include hitting and kicking, after he returns to Mother’s custody. Mother stated that she has tried to talk with Father about Child’s behavioral issues, but Father either does not reply or simply says that he does not believe Child has behavioral issues. Mother indicated that Father has never spoken with Child’s counselor. Page 6 of 16 For his part, Father stated that Child often “shuts down” when he picks him up to begin his custodial period, and that when he relinquishes custody to Mother, Child is upset and does not want to leave him, but Father stated that he does not see Child exhibit the behaviors that Mother reports, and he has communicated that to her. Paternal Grandfather testified that he has seen Child act out by throwing or hitting toys when he first gets to Father’s residence, but that after the first day, he “calms down.” Father further indicated that he did not talk with Father’s counselor because he did not know where Child was attending counseling, but Father also admitted that he never asked. Father stated that he does not discuss Child’s counseling with Mother because it will lead to an argument. Both parties acknowledge that the other parent is a good parent to Child, and Mother acknowledges that Father’s family has good relationships with Child, going as far to have pictures of Child and Paternal Grandfather in her home. Both parties agree that, but for the distance between the parties, they would prefer a shared custodial arrangement. Father even went as far as to say that if the Court would prefer the Child to remain in Cumberland County, he would move back to the area. CUSTODY FACTORS Under 23 Pa.C.SA. §5328(a), when awarding any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors including the following: (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party. Mother generally seems to be more organized and focused on communicating with Father. This is not necessarily the same thing as encouraging and permitting frequent and continuing contact, however. The nature and tone of the communications tend to be directive and interrogatory. Mother was the primary caretaker for approximately three years and tends to approach Father from a perceived position of superiority. She unilaterally reduced the number of video chats from once a day to three times per week because they were “too disruptive” to Child and Child “wasn’t interested.” Father, for his part, seems to be less organized and focused. He tends to avoid confrontation and oftentimes does not answer Mother’s emails. He does not discourage contact, however, and resisted the reduction in video chats even on his custodial days. Page 7 of 16 In the aggregate, Mother seems more organized and capable of encouraging contact. To be clear, neither parent exactly encourages contact within the spirit of the factor. Emotions are extremely raw, the parents are relatively young and just transitioned from military service, have now just re- established themselves with meaningful employment and are setting down roots in their respective locations. They are just learning to respect each other as human beings and co-parents. While not discouraging, their contact seems to be more perfunctory than meaningful. This factor favors Mother. (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. In her Protection from Abuse Petition, Mother alleged that Father hit Child and put his hands on Child’s neck. A subsequent Children and Youth Services investigation was unfounded. Father raised concerns in his June 25, 2020 that Child was being neglected and was living in an unsafe environment. Those allegations were also unfounded. This factor is neutral. (2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services). As stated above, each Children and Youth Services investigation conducted in relation to this matter has been unfounded, but as a result of Child’s interview with the Children’s Resource Center, counseling for Child was recommended. Child participates in counseling once a month. This factor is neutral. (3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child. Mother was the primary caretaker for approximately three years and preformed the bulk of the parental duties. However, Father has had supervised shared physical custody since May 13, 2020, and unsupervised shared physical custody since July 7, 2020. He is quite capable of performing parental duties. Page 8 of 16 An interesting note though is Father’s lack of involvement with the Child’s health care providers. Despite having shared physical custody since July 2020 and shared legal custody since Child’s birth, Father not only let Mother decide Child’s pediatrician, dentist, and therapist, but he declined to meaningfully engage with them. Additionally, all appointments took place during Mother’s custodial time. Father did not participate. Father’s proffered explanation was that he was never told. This answer is unavailing. He is the Father, he should ask. The deeper explanation is slightly more complex. In harmonious two parent relationships, the parents tend to specialize in their in the roles and complement each other. One parent may specialize in scheduling and acquiring medical appointments and providers while one parent specializes in education or extra-curricular activities. While the parents do consult each other, they tend to trust and default to one another’s judgement. At the onset of custody cases, one parent is sometimes penalized for not doing what, by agreement, the other has traditionally done. The parents then attempt to reconstitute two complete wholes from two separate halves to varying degrees of success. What the Court analyzes in this factor is what duties have been traditionally done, what duties have been done by agreement, and the capability and willingness to do those duties in the future. In the present case, the Court does not penalize Father for deferring to Mother’s judgement for at least the last two if not five years. However, his lack of meaningful involvement in Child’s medical, dental, and therapeutic appointments does impact his capability and willingness to perform those duties. This manifested itself in three discreet ways during testimony. When discussing Child’s therapy on the witness stand, Father stated never investigated potential therapists in his area because he did not think two different therapists would be beneficial to Child. Though this thought may be self-evident and even correct, Father never once bothered to confirm that fact with the therapist or even talk to the therapist, ever. Later in testimony when discussing his plans for healthcare providers for Child in his area, he was extremely vague and lamented the fact that he did not have access to Child’s healthcare because Mother “did not fill out a form”. He Page 9 of 16 further stated that most providers would not take Child’s insurance anyway. In all, the explanation did not sound particularly well-researched. Lastly, as far back as August 20, 2020, Father was ordered to execute whatever medical releases necessary for an evaluator to consider the parties’ prior medical and psychological records. On October 29, 2020, Father was again ordered to execute releases and also “…follow through with the recommendations as provided for in their individual psychological evaluation or a substantially similar course of instruction and provide proof of same to the Court.” (emphasis added). Both the parties’ individual evaluations recommended three different classes. Mother, being the more organized and focused person, not only quickly completed hers, but had her paramour complete them as well. In 4 contrast, Father failed to sign a medical release in a timely manner, but most significantly, failed to take any classes at all. His stated reason was that he was not local to where the classes were offered, but the Court order itself allowed for “substantially similar” courses of instruction. Whether the Court ultimately finds that Father ‘needs’ the classes is entirely beside the point. The evaluation recommended it and now instead of lauding Father for doing what needs to be done for his Child, the Court is discussing his lack of willingness to do what needs to done for his Child. While the Court finds Father is perfectly capable of parenting his Child, his willingness to do so is called into question. This factor favors Mother. (4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life and community life. In this case, this is an odd factor. The parties currently enjoy week- on/week-off shared custody but recognize that due to the distance of the residences, shared custody will be impossible during the school year. Both parties have agreed that a primary school week with partial custody on every other weekend would be the most viable custody arrangement regardless of who had primary custody during the week. Thus, this factor is neutral. (5) The availability of extended family. 4 Father claims the delay was caused by Army bureaucracy. The Court, being a 26 year veteran of the United States Army, is forced to find this excuse entirely reasonable, but slightly suspect nonetheless. Page 10 of 16 Father has an extensive network of extended family available to him in the area to include a married brother in the same apartment complex, a sister who works as a teacher at the facility Child attends, paternal grandfather who lives 10 minutes away with his wife, step paternal grandmother, who is the director of the facility Child to attends, and paternal grandmother who lives in New Jersey and visits once or twice a month. There was some testimony from Mother that Father had some troubles with his family and especially paternal grandmother, but whatever trouble there was, if any, has since dissipated. Mother has no extended family in the area, but does occasionally take trips to Massachusetts to see her family. It is noted that Mother has at least a courteous relationship with paternal grandfather, if not a cordial one. This factor favors Father. (6) The child's sibling relationships. This factor is non-applicable. (7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment. The Child is too young to form a preference and was not interviewed. This factor is non-applicable. (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. There has been prolix litigation, but no real active attempts by the parties to turn the Child against the other parent. This factor is neutral. (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. Page 11 of 16 As delineated in the factor three analysis, each parent displays strengths and weaknesses that is normal for any two parent situation. Child needs both his Father and Mother. Both his Father and Mother are situated similarly as they both work and have support structures, albeit to different degrees. Ultimately, they both, in their individual ways, satisfy Child’s emotional needs in a stable, consistent manner. This factor is neutral. (10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child. Mother seems more organized and has, since the birth of Child, been attending to at least the developmental and educational needs of Child. Mother is the one who monitors Child’s therapeutic, medical, and dental needs. Father has been content to let Mother take the lead on such matters. Ultimately, while the Court believes Father is fully capable of providing for any physical and emotional needs of Child, it does give the Court pause that he has had little to no communication with Child’s providers and seems stymied on how to acquire healthcare for Child. This factor favors Mother. (11) The proximity of the residences of the parties. It is unfortunate that both parties live approximately two hours apart. But for the distance, both parties have stipulated that custody would be 50/50. This factor is neutral. (12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements. Both Mother and father work during the day. Mother has suitable childcare arrangements and her paramour and a family friend for emergencies, but lacks extended family for support in the area. Father has a large extended family for both routine and emergency support. This factor favors Father. Page 12 of 16 (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. There is a modicum of tension and conflict between the parties, but it takes a slightly unusual form. The parents are relatively young and both transitioned from the military within the past five years. After their separation two years ago, both found new stable employment and established themselves in their respective residences. Mother is very organized and focused and seems to find comfort in that. She communicates regularly with Father, but the tone and tenor appears directive. Father is hesitant, perhaps nervous of responding, and comes across as passive aggressive. In short, the parents did not appear to know how to communicate with each other as co-equal partners. Mother deals with her stress and anxiety by taking solace in organization and Father deals with his stress by retreating. This factor favors Mother. (14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's household. There was no substantial testimony as to drug or alcohol abuse by either party. This factor is neutral. (15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's household. Both parties have diagnosed mental conditions but both are activity being treated. Neither party’s conditions present a concern for the Court. This factor is neutral. (16) Any other relevant factor. Page 13 of 16 Father stated during testimony if he did not receive primary custody during the school year, he would move back to Cumberland County to share custody. Father could have said this in order to inflate the Court’s opinion of him and gain an advantage, or Father could be sincere. Regardless, it momentarily presented the Court with a dilemma: (1) Does the Court analyze custody as one of parents living near each other in Cumberland County vs. living apart in two different counties, or (2) as initially presented, as one of primary school-year custody? The Court believes the answer to be self-evident. The res controversa is as the parties initially presented to the Court. Further, Father moved back to Levittown on April 7, 2020 and Mother filed for divorce and custody on April 22, 2020 after Father had moved. Thus, this is not a matter of relocation. Father assumes the risk he may not be awarded primary custody and may have to make a decision of what is in his, and his Child’s best interest. This factor is neutral. DISCUSSION The Child Custody Act provides that, “upon petition, a court may modify a 5 custody order to serve the best interest of the child.” It is within the trial court’s purview as finder of fact to determine which enumerated best interest factors are most salient 6 and critical in each particular child custody case, but “\[a\]ll of the factors listed in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) are required to be considered by the trial court when entering a 7 custody order.” It is, therefore, within the trial court's discretion based on the record before it to determine the relevant weight to give each of the Section 5328(a) factors in 8 a particular case, but ultimately, when a trial court orders a form of custody, the best 9 interest of the child is paramount.” It is heartbreaking that but for the distance involved, the parties have agreed custody would be shared equally. If it were a simple matter of adding up which factor favors which party, Mother would ‘win’ as she has three factors to Father’s two. But the 5 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a). 6 M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.33d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) appeal denied 68 A.3d 909 (Pa. 2013). 7 J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011)(emphasis in original). 8 Id. at 289 (citing M.J.M., 63 A.3d at 339). 9 T.M. v. H.M., 210 A.3d 283, 288 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 216 A.3d 1018 (Pa. 2019)(citing P.J.P. v. M.M., 185 A.3d 413, 417 (Pa. Super. 2018)(internal citation omitted)). Page 14 of 16 factors are a guide or an analytical framework in determining what is in the best interest of Child. It is for the Court to determine which factors are most salient. For the Court, the question is not who the more ‘fit’ parent is but rather which locale, school district, and environment is more conducive to the upbringing of Child during the school year. Mother is certainly more organized and has arranged virtually all of Child’s medical, dental, and therapeutic appointments. The Court has no doubt she would be as involved in the educational aspects of Child’s life. Mother is also more communicative, albeit in a directed fashion. Father, though, is not incapable. Quite the contrary, he has a loving bond with Child and attends to his physical and emotional needs. He has, however, demonstrated a lack of either willingness or ability to delve into the administrative aspects of Child’s life. Whether this is out deference to Mother or a conflict avoidance mechanism, this apathy has seeped into other aspects of the case such as his unwillingness to abide by the recommendations of his evaluation. Father was recommended to take three parenting type classes or their equivalent. The classes have nothing to do with avoiding conflict with Mother as they have nothing to do with Mother. They are solely for his benefit. As was made painfully aware during testimony, the Court instead of lauding Father for his initiative, now must chide him for his indifference. The locales are fairly similar and pleasant places to live and raise children. Both schools have a good reputation. Both residences are appropriate. Ultimately the distinguishing factor is the support network and extended family of the parents. Both parents work, Mother’s paramour works, parents’ mutual friend works. Further, there is really nothing tying Mother to Cumberland County save for the roots Mother intends to put down with her paramour. There is no extended family whatsoever in Cumberland County. In contrast, Father has not only extensive family in Levittown, but that family is heavily involved. Child attended daycare where Sister teaches and step grandmother directs. Child has family dinners with grandparents and family at least once, if not more times a week. Paternal Grandfather, step Grandmother, Sister, and Brother and his family all live in close proximity and interact in one form or another weekly, if not daily. Paternal Grandmother who lives in New Jersey even visits monthly. The extended family gets along and interacts - they are not just check boxes on a factor checklist. They are the family to which Father retreated and they are the family on which Father relies. In turn, they provide a wonderful, loving support network for Mother and Father’s child. Child is blessed in that regard. Ultimately, the Court finds that availability of extended family the most salient in this case. While the extended family could certainly visit Child in Cumberland County, the daily interactions and support of Aunts, Uncles, and Grandparents is so beneficial to Child’s educational and developmental support in this particular case that it outweighs other factors. Thus, it is in Child’s Best Interest, that primary custody during the school year be awarded to Father. Page 15 of 16 By the Court, __________________________ Matthew P. Smith, J. Mark F. Bayley, Esq. 17 W. South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Shawn M. Stottlemyer, Esq. 2 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Page 16 of 16