V.C.T. v. J.W.T.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1372 EDA 2020,J-A01042-21,1372 EDA 2020 |
| Parties | V.C.T., Appellee v. J.W.T., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.W.T. (Father) appeals from the July 10, 2020 order relating to the trial court's earlier June 12, 2020 primary physical custody award of J.T. (Daughter) to V.C.T. (Mother) and a contempt finding as to Father of a prior custody order. Upon review, we affirm.
We summarize the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows. Mother and Father, who married, separated, and divorced in 2001, 2010, and 2016, respectively, are parents of Daughter, born in September 2003, and J.T. (Son), born in April 2002 (collectively, Children). Mother and Father had been sharing physical and legal custody of Children pursuant to a May 2, 2012 order of court. Mother and Father each exercised physical custody as set forth in paragraph 6 of the custody order.
Custody Order, 5/2/2012, at 2. The order also contained a schedule for physical custody arrangements for the ensuing summers beginning in 2013. The order entitled Mother and Father to two, "non-consecutive weeks of vacation with [C]hildren" and, "if the parties can agree, they can each have an additional week of vacation in the summer either consecutive or non-consecutive." Id. at 4.
In October 2014, Mother filed a petition seeking primary physical custody subject to partial custody visitation and sole legal custody of Children on the basis that Father's mental and physical condition had deteriorated. The parties resolved the custody dispute during a custody conference. Accordingly, Mother withdrew her petition for modification of custody.
In July 2015, Mother filed an emergency petition seeking sole physical and legal custody of Children. Mother claimed Father was behaving in an abusive manner towards Children, such that it required immediate intervention to keep Children from harm. In response, Father filed a petition for custody evaluation. A hearing was held in August 2015, at which thetrial court determined Mother's petition was not an emergency. Thus, the trial court directed the parties, if they desired, to request a custody conciliation conference. A conference was scheduled for February 19, 2016, but four days prior, Mother agreed to withdraw her July 2015 petition.
The parties did not seek court intervention regarding custody for the next three years, until Mother and Father filed a series of petitions relevant to this appeal. On June 24, 2019, Mother filed an emergency petition alleging contempt of the May 2, 2012 custody order. Mother averred that Father violated the order by failing to follow the weekday and weekend physical custody schedule and the summer vacation terms. On July 26, 2019, Father filed an emergency counterclaim, alleging contempt of the same order on the same grounds. On August 5, 2019, Mother filed a petition to modify custody. In the petition, she requested primary physical and sole legal custody, averring simply that she believed it to be in Children's best interest. Petition for Modification of Custody Order, 8/5/2019, at ¶ 5.
The trial court conducted hearings on the three petitions on December 2-3, 2019, and February 20-21, 2020. At the hearings, the parties, Children, and other witnesses testified.
On June 12, 2020, the trial court issued an order ruling upon Mother and Father's petitions for contempt and Mother's petition for modification of custody (June 2020 Order). Without elaboration, the trial court found Fatherin contempt of the May 2, 2012 custody order, but denied Father's counterclaim requesting that Mother be held in contempt. Id. at 4. However, the trial court imposed no penalties upon Father. Id. In the June 2020 Order, the trial court analyzed the 16 custody factors set forth at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a), and concluded that it was in Daughter's best interest for Mother to have primary physical custody. June 2020 Order, 6/12/2020, at 2-5. It ordered Mother and Father to share legal custody. Id. at 5. The trial court declined to order custody of Son because Son had reached the age of 18 prior to the issuance of the June 2020 Order. Id. at 4-5.
Regarding physical custody of Daughter, the trial court specified that Father had custody on Wednesdays from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and every other Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, including overnights, beginning at 5:00 p.m. or after school on Friday until Monday at 9:00 a.m. or when school began. Id. at 5. An alternating holiday schedule was specified in detail. Id. at 6. Each parent was allotted two non-consecutive weeks of vacation per year with Daughter and was required to notify the other parent of the plans and itinerary at least 30 days in advance. Id. at 7. Each parent needed to ensure that Daughter attended all activities and events during the parent's respective custody periods. Id.
The order also contained an assortment of other provisions. Each party was prohibited from disparaging the other party in the presence of Daughter. Id. at 8. Specific to Father, Father was required to complypromptly with all financial aid documentation for Daughter's college applications. Id. Further, he was prohibited from discussing the alleged rape of Children to Children or to a third party who may come in contact with them.1 Id. The order also prohibited Father from recording any conversations he had with Children. Id. Father was obligated to begin counseling immediately to last for at least six months or as long as determined necessary by his psychiatrist or counselor. Inclusion of Children in Father's therapy was left at the discretion of Father's therapist, and if inclusion occurred, it was to be paid for by Father. Id. The purpose of the counseling was for Father to address his prior conversations with Children regarding their alleged rapes, his audio recording of conversations with Children, and his ability to connect emotionally with Children. Id. The trial court did not order Children or Mother to attend individual psychological/psychiatric therapy, but if Daughter decided to attend, the court required Mother to pay for any of Daughter's out-of-pocket costs that were not covered by Mother's medical insurance. Id.
Father timely filed a motion seeking post-trial relief and reconsideration of the June 2020 Order. In the portion of the motion seeking post-trial relief, Father alleged that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt because Mother's contempt motion had been withdrawnand the order did not specify which provision of the May 2, 2012 custody order he had violated. Father's motion also asked the court to reconsider whether the June 2020 Order and any provisions therein should address Son, given the court's finding that Son was emancipated. Further, he alleged the June 2020 Order was invalid because it mistakenly stated that Mother's August 5, 2019 petition to modify the May 2, 2012 custody order was denied.
On July 10, 2020, the trial court issued an order denying Father's requested post-trial relief and granting in part and denying in part Father's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the trial court agreed with Father that it erred by including Son in the June 2020 Order and amended the June 2020 Order by changing references to Children to Daughter only. Furthermore, instead of granting Father's request to invalidate the June 2020 Order due to its error regarding Mother's August 5, 2019 petition to modify, the trial court further amended the June 2020 Order by clarifying that Mother had primary physical custody and the parties shared legal custody of Daughter. Father timely filed a notice of appeal.2 Both Father and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father raises eight issues on appeal, which we have reordered for ease of disposition. Specifically, Father asks this Court to decide whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in: 1) modifying an order of equal custody to grant Mother primary custody; 2) finding there was no evidence regarding the extended family of Father; 3) requiring that only Father undergo counseling; 4) not appointing a reunification therapist for Father and Son; 5) holding Father in contempt without stating a reason; 6) not holding Mother in contempt; 7) not allowing Father to call a witness; and 8) limiting Father's freedom of speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Father's Brief at 16.
We consider Father's claims mindful of our well-settled standard of review.
To continue reading
Request your trial