J-S02028-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 TYESHA MACK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : DIAMOND BILLUPS AND JEFFREY : No. 2380 EDA 2024 JOLLY : Appeal from the Order Entered August 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 0C1706025

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 7, 2025 Appellant, Tyesha Mack (“Maternal Grandmother”), appeals pro se from the August 12, 2024 order that granted the petition to modify custody filed by her daughter, Appellee Diamond Billups (“Mother”), and awarded Mother and Jeffrey Jolly (“Father”) sole legal and primary physical custody of their son, seven-year-old D.J. (“Child”). The order also awarded Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody of Child every other weekend. Maternal Grandmother raises challenges to trial court’s credibility determinations and weight of the evidence, and she asserts allegations of judicial bias. Upon careful review, we affirm.

The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. On February 2, 2022, Maternal Grandmother filed a complaint for custody of Child. On April 28, 2022, the trial court granted Maternal Grandmother sole legal and J-S02028-25

primary physical custody of Child, after Mother and Father both failed to appear for trial despite receiving proper notice.

On May 10, 2023, Mother filed a petition for modification requesting sole legal and primary physical custody of Child. On January 22, 2024, after a custody hearing, the court entered a temporary order awarding Mother and Father sole legal and primary physical custody of Child and awarding Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody of Child every other weekend.

On August 12, 2024, the court held a custody hearing. Mother and Father appeared pro se. Maternal Grandmother appeared with counsel. The court heard testimony from Mother, Father, Maternal Grandmother’s mother (“Great Grandmother”), Maternal Grandmother, and Child.

In sum, Mother and Father testified that they currently live together in an adequate three-bedroom house with Child’s one-year-old sibling, they have lived in the house for the past three years, Father is employed as a home healthcare aid for his mother, they have adequate income for food, and domestic violence is not occurring in the home. Mother and Father also testified that Child lived with them from his birth until 2022 when the trial court awarded Maternal Grandmother sole legal and primary physical custody after Mother and Father failed to appear in court.

In turn, Maternal Grandmother testified that Mother does not have a permanent address, domestic violence occurs frequently between Father and Mother, and Child has seemed depressed and unconcerned with personal hygiene since he has been living with Mother and Father after the trial court -2- J-S02028-25

issued the temporary custody order. Maternal Grandmother testified that she has always been Child’s primary caretaker, because Mother was a teenager when she gave birth to Child.

After considering the 23 Pa.C.S § 5328 custody factors on the record, and finding Mother and Father’s testimony to be credible, the trial court granted Mother’s petition to modify. The court entered a final order, which confirmed the January 22, 2024 temporary order, awarded Mother and Father sole legal and primary physical custody of Child, and awarded Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody of Child every other weekend.

Maternal Grandmother filed a timely pro se appeal. Both Maternal Grandmother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In her pro se brief, Maternal Grandmother raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the trial court err[] in violating [Maternal Grandmother]’s right to a fair trial by demonstrating clear favoritism towards the petitioners. This bias was evident when the judge, during the proceedings, assured the petitioners by stating, “I got you, I got you,” indicating a predetermined decision to award them custody of [Child]. Such conduct is in direct contravention of the principles outlined in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) which mandates that custody decisions be made on a thorough and impartial consideration of all relevant factors to determine the best interests of the child.

2. Did the trial court err[] in awarding primary physical custody to [Mother] and [Father], despite substantial evidence demonstrating that such arrangement is not in the best interest of [C]hild [] due to the fact that neither petitioner presented proof of having a job or a stable place of residence in accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328[(a)?]

-3- J-S02028-25

3. Did the trial court err[] by failing to consider all relevant factors to determine the best interest of [C]hild’s safety, mental health, emotional needs, and well-being [] before making a custody determination in accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328[(a)?]

4. Did the trial court err[] in its decision to remove [C]hild [] from Maternal Grandmother[’s] home [] whom he lived with and has been his guardian since the age of three months old. Was [the decision] arbitrary and not supported by evidence presented during the trial [] in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S. §5328[(a)?]

5. Did the trial court err[] in failing to create a full and complete record in order to fully address Child’s best interest [] in accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328[(a)?]

6. Did the trial court err[] in failing to address and appropriate[ly] weigh the testimony of [Maternal Grandmother’s mother] of [d]omestic [v]iolence at [C]hild’s place of residence between [] Mother and [F]ather [] in accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)?1 7. Did the trial court err[] in failing to address and give appropriate weight to the testimony and evidence presented regarding the Mother[] and Father’s inability to co-parent with on another [] in accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328[(a)?]

8. Did the trial court err[] in failing to consider the impact of the new custody on [C]hild’s mental stability after living with [Maternal Grandmother] for the whole of his life 7 years [] which [was not in] accordance [with] 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328[(a)?]

Maternal Grandmother’s Br. at 5-7 (reordered and renumbered for ease of disposition).

____________________________________________

-4- J-S02028-25

This Court reviews a custody determination for an abuse of discretion, and “our scope of review is broad.” S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014). This Court will not find an abuse of discretion “merely because a reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion.” In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). This Court must accept the findings of the trial court that the evidence supports. S.W.D., 96 A.3d at 400.

Importantly, “[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Further, in a custody case, relief is not warranted unless the party claiming error suffered prejudice from the mistake. J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124, 1129-30 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Pennsylvania law provides that the trial court is only empowered to change an existing custody order if the modification will “serve the best interest of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a). Indeed, when reviewing child custody matters, “[o]ur paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” is the best interests of the child. Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (citation omitted).

“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.” D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566, 572 (Pa. -5- J-S02028-25

Super. 2016) (citations omitted). “Common sense dictates that trial courts should strive, all other things being equal, to assure that a child maintains a healthy relationship with both of his or her parents, and that the parents work together to raise their child.” S.C.B. v. J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 916 (Pa. Super. 2019).

The trial court “shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors . . . which affect the safety of the child,” including the enumerated factors mandated by the Custody Act. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) and (c). The court must “delineate the reasons for its decision[.]” Id. at § 5323(d). In any action regarding the custody of the child between the parents of the child and a nonparent, including a grandparent, “there shall be a presumption that custody shall be awarded to the parent.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5327(b). Even if a grandparent attains standing through in loco parentis status, it does “not alter her role as a third-party challenger” to a parent’s request for primary physical custody. M.J.S. v. B.B., 172 A.3d 651, 660 (Pa. Super. 2017). A grandparent may rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Id. This Court has defined clear and convincing evidence “as presenting evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

As our Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hile acknowledging the general benefits of these relationships, we cannot conclude that such a benefit -6- J-S02028-25

always accrues in cases where grandparents force their way into grandchildren’s lives through the courts, contrary to the decision of a fit parent.” Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875, 886 (Pa. 2006). Thus, in a custody dispute for primary physical custody of a child that occurs between parents and a grandparent, “even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the [biological] parents’ side.” Charles v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted). “What the judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child’s best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party's side.” V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

In her first issue, Maternal Grandmother avers that the trial court judge exhibited favoritism and bias towards parents by stating, “I got you” to parents multiple times during the custody hearing. Maternal Grandmother’s Br. at 6-7. Maternal Grandmother argues that this indicates that the court had a “predetermined decision” to award custody to parents. Id. at 7. This issue lacks merit.

Notably, this Court “presumes judges of this Commonwealth are honorable, fair and competent[.]” Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104, 108 (Pa. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, Maternal Grandmother clearly mischaracterizes the trial court judge’s actions.

In its opinion, the trial court judge categorically denies saying “I got you” to -7- J-S02028-25

any party during the custody proceedings. Instead, the trial court judge explained, she stated “got it” or “I got it” in response to testimony from parents, as well as Maternal Grandmother, to “verbalize only an understanding of the context of the testimony, not a judgment about the testimony.” Trial Ct. Op., dated 10/10/24, at 13 (citing N.T. Trial, 8/12/2024, at 149). The trial court judge opined that the court’s remarks needed to be “contextualized within the broader proceedings” and emphasized that “the [c]ourt’s ultimate decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and without bias to any one party, maintaining the integrity of the trial.” Id. We agree and discern no abuse of discretion.2 In her remaining seven issues, Maternal Grandmother raises challenges to the trial court’s credibility determinations as well as to the weight of the evidence.3 The Honorable Betsy Wahl has written a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned opinion, including a discussion of relevant case law and the Custody Act, to explain why the court awarded parents sole legal and primary physical custody of Child. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4-15. In sum, the court applied ____________________________________________

-8- J-S02028-25

the Section 5327 presumption that custody shall be awarded to the parent and found that Maternal Grandmother failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. The court opined: This [c]ourt’s focus is always on the best interest of the Child.

Maternal Grandmother may have provided a stable and nurturing environment for [Child] at some points of Mother’s minority, but that history does not override Mother and Father’s rights as [Child]’s legal parents. . . .This [c]ourt found no compelling evidence of abuse, neglect, or incapacity presented by Maternal Grandmother. . . . The presumption favoring parental custody remains strong in cases of intact families, and the evidence presented does not support a finding of unfitness or exceptional circumstances warranting a change at this time. Mother and Father are currently an intact family, and they have been an intact family since [Child]’s birth . . . . After hearing all of the evidence presented at trial, this [c]ourt gave careful consideration to all [the] custody factors, and the resulting final custody order was based on those considerations. Although there were discrepancies that occurred in the testimony of the parties, this [c]ourt ultimately found Mother and Father’s testimony more credible than Maternal Grandmother’s.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6. The court then proceeded to address each of Maternal Grandmother’s issues in turn. Following our review, we adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own with regards to issues two through eight. See id. at 4-15 (addressing each issue raised in Maternal Grandmother’s Rule 1925(b) statement and concluding: (1) Mother and Father testified credibly that they live together and that Father is employed; (2) the court thoroughly considered and reviewed all of the Section 5328 custody factors to determine what custody arrangement would be in Child’s best interest; (3) the trial court’s decision to award Mother and Father primary physical custody was based on

-9- J-S02028-25

sufficient and credible evidence regarding Child’s welfare under the custody factors and was neither arbitrary nor capricious; (4) the court maintained an accurate and thorough record throughout the trial and evaluated the relevant custody factors on the record; (5) the court considered Maternal Great Grandmother’s testimony regarding the existence of domestic violence between Mother and Father, but concluded that Mother and Father’s testimony denying a history of domestic violence was more credible; (6) Mother and Father’s ability to co-parent with each other is not one of the enumerated custody factors that the trial court is compelled to consider; and (7) the court heard conflicting testimony regarding how long Child previously resided with Maternal Grandmother but recognized the emotional bond between Maternal Grandmother and Child, considered Child’s mental stability, and ultimately concluded that Child would benefit from the changed custody arrangement of residing with his intact family, including his younger sibling). The record supports the trial court’s findings and, as always, we decline to reweigh the evidence or usurp the trial court’s credibility determinations. Accordingly, we discern no trial court error.

In sum, our review of the record fails to reveal any trial court bias.

Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the Section 5327(b) presumption that custody shall be awarded to the parents and awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of Child to parents and partial physical custody to Maternal Grandmother.

- 10 - J-S02028-25

The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court’s October 10, 2024 opinion to all future filings.

Order affirmed.

Date: 4/7/2025

- 11 - I Tyesha Mack Vs Diamond Billups [JD04]

•IIIIIII IIV A MI 0C1706025 D57 11111 11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY COURT DIVISION

T.M., IN CUSTODY CUSTODY: 0C1706025 OC 1706025 Appellant/Maternal Appellant Maternal Grandmother Filea V.

SCI- 10 D.B., D.B.. SUPERIOR COURT '0?Q Appellee/Mother t~lerlc of Family CoUrt2 & J.J., Appel lee/Father Appellee/Father NO.: 2380 EDA 2024 NO.

OPINION pPINION Wahl, J.

T.M. ("Maternal Appellant, T.M. (Maternal Grandmother") appeals this Court's August 12, 2024 Order granting Appellee, granting D.B.'s ("Mother") Appellee, D.B.'s Complaint for (Mother") Complaint J.J. (Father") for Custody against Appellee, JJ. ("Father") against Maternal Grandmother. and Petition for Modification against Grandmother. Mother Mother and Father Father are the parents parents two ((2) of two 2) minor children: children: DJ,, D.J., age 77and A.), A.J., age I1. Maternal Grandmother filed aatimely Notice of Appeal from the August 12, 2024 Order Order. Maternal Grandmother's challenge to the final order is without merit, and the order of August August 12, 2024 should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in this opinion opinion.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April April 28, 2022, 2022, Maternal Grandmother appeared before the Honorable Mark B.

B Cohen on her Complaint for Custody, which was filed on February 2, 2. 2022. Maternal Grandmother was awarded sole legal legal and sole primary custody of DJ.

D.J. without prejudice to Mother and Father who both failed to appear despite proper notice.

C D\ "V bZ: tt9Z0Z/0Z/C0 paje[noaio On May 10, 2023, Mother, prose, I0, 2023,Mother, pro se, filed filed a a Complaint for Custody Custody (" Complaint") for one (Cornplent")

child, A.J., requesting sole legal and sole physical physical custody, and aaPetition for Modification ("Petition") for one child, D.J., requesting aamodification of the April (Petition") April 28, 2022 Order requesting requesting sole legal and sole physical physical custody.

On January 22, 2024, Mother and Father appeared pro se, and Maternal Maternal Grandmother then- counsel, for appeared with then-counsel, for Mother's Complaint Complaint and Petition. On that date, this Court found Mother and Father credible and entered entered a atemporary order granting granting Mother and Father sole legal legal and primary physical custody of DJ, D.J., with with Maternal Grandmother having partial physical custody every other weekend. weekend. No order was entered for A.J.

A.J and Father appeared On August 12, 2024, Mother and appeared pro pro se, and Maternal Grandmother appeared with new counsel, for Mother's Complaint and Petition.

Petition. Regarding Regarding A.J., aafinal order was entered awarding was awarding Mother and Father sole legal legal and sole physical custody. Regarding physical custody. Regarding DJ., D.J., aa awarding Mother and Father sole legal final order was entered awarding custody and primary legal custody primary physical physical Maternal Grandmother was awarded partial physical custody every other weekend only custody. Matemal only for D.J D.J.

timely Appeal On September 11, 2024, Maternal Grandmother, pro se, filed this timely along Appeal along with aaConcise Statement of Errors Complained Complained of On Appeal.

On Appeal STATEMENT OE CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS OF ON ERRORS COMPLAINED OE ON APPEAL 1.

I. awarding primary The trial court erred in awarding physical custody primary physical custody to [Mother] and [Father] [Mother] and [Father] demonstrating that despite substantial evidence demonstrating that such such an arrangement arrangement is not in in the best best child. Due to the fact that interest of the child. that neither petitioner present proof proof of having having aa[j]ob U]ob or aastable place of residence residence [i]n [ijn accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328.

I 2. The trial court erred by failing to consider all relevant factors Te flu.tors to deterrine beg determine the best

interest of the child's safety, mental health, emotional needs, and well-being. well-being. Before making aacustody determination determination [i]n [iJn accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328.

5328 3.3. The trial court erred in its decision to remove child "Dylan Jolly" from Maternal Dylan Jolly" Grandmother "Tyesha Mack" home.

Grandmother home. Whom he lived with and has been his guardian guardian since the age of three months old. old. Was arbitrary and not supported supported by by evidence presented presented during the trial. trial. In In accordance with 23 PA.C.S. accordance with PA.C.S. §$ 5328.

5328 4.4. The trial court erred in failing to create aafull and complete record in order to fully interest. In accordance to 23 PA.C.S.§[.] address Child's best interest. PA.C.S.$[.]

5. The trial court erred in failing to address and appropriate weigh and appropriate testimony of weigh the testimony Appellants Mother (Childs Appellants Mother great grandmother) (Childs maternal great grandmother) of of [d]omestic [dJomestic [v]iolence [violence at the the [c]hild's place of residence between child's Mother and Father [cJhild's Father [i]n [ijn accordance to 23 PA.C.S. §$ 5328.

PA.C.S.

appropriate weight 6. The trial court erred in failing to address and give appropriate weight to the testimony testimony and evidence presented regarding the Mother's and Father's inability inability to co-parent co-parent with one another. In accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.CS. §$ 5328.

7. The trial court erred in violating the Appellant's right right to aafair trial by by demonstrating demonstrating clear favoritism towards the Petitioners.

Petitioners. This bias was evident when when the judge, judge, during during the proceedings, assured the Petitioners by stating, stating, "I "Igot got you, you, I got you," I got you," indicating indicating aa predetermined predetermined decision to award them custody of the child. them custody child, Dylan Jolly. Such conduet Dylan Jolly. conduct is is in direct contravention of the principles outlined in 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328, which mandates mandates based on aathorough and impartial that custody decisions be made based impartial consideration of all relevant factors to determine the best interests of the child[.] child[.]

J3 88. The uial trial court erred in in failing to consider the impact of of the nw new custody on on th the cl4ds child's

mental stability after living with Appellant living with Appellant Tyesha Mack, Mack, (Childs (Childs maternal grandmother) for the whole of his 7 years. years. Which in accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

Which wasn't in PA.CS. §$ 5328 5328.

STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in aachild custody matter is abuse of discretion. discretion. C C.R.F.

R.F. v. S.E.F., • SE.F.

A.3d 441, 443 4.34 443 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2012). Findings of the trial court, which are supported by the record, and weight of the evidence, should be deferred to the trial record, issues of witness credibility, and Id The conclusions of the trial judge may be rejected if they involve an error of law judge. Id. law or are unreasonable. unreasonable.Id. +The "The discretion discretion that that aatrial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, respect, given given the the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned." Jackson v. • Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 1254 (Pa. (Pa Super. 2004).

ANALYSIS It t is this Court's understanding that Maternal Grandmother is not challenging the final D.J When asked by this order regarding child A.J., but only the portion with regards to child D.J.

Court whether it is "fair say... that grandmother isn't trying to have any kind of custody of fair to say...

responded, "[t)his Ahmad," Maternal Grandmother responded, Ahmad." (N.T., "[t]his case wasn't about Ahmad." p. 77,3- (N.T,,p. 77, 3- 13).

in its custody determination as it f his Court did not err in This it thoroughly evaluated all custody factors related to the best interest of the child. child. The court's decision was grounded in aa comprehensive review of the evidence presented, presented. which included testimonies from both Mother and Father, Maternal Grandmother, and Maternal Maternal Grandmother's witness, H.P. HP ("Maternal (Maternal Great Grandmother"). This Court's focus is always on the best interest of the Child. Maternal Grandmother").

I Grandmother may have provided a stable and nurturing envirorunent for D.J. at sore points of

Mother's minority, but that history does not override Mother and Father's rights as D.J.'s D.J's legal parents. parents The law generally presumes that fit fit parents should retain custody over third parties, including grandparents. The Court in K.

KT.T. •v. LS.

L. S. provides that "[w]hile provides that [while acknowledging the general benefits of these relationships, we cannot conclude that such aabenefit always accrues in cases where grandparents force their way into grandchildren's lives through the courts, contrary to the decision of a afit parent." 2015 PA Super 141, 118 A.3d A.Jd 1136, 1160-61 1160--61 (2015). (2015). Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §$5327(b), Pa.C.S.A. 5327(b), when aathird party is filing for primary primary physical physical custody against aanatural parent, there shall be aapresumption that the custody should be awarded to the natural parent parent.

The presumption may be rebutted by by clear and and convincing evidence. Thus, Thus, the judge must hear all evidence relevant to the child's best interest and then decide whether evidence on behalf of third parties is weighty weighty enough to tip the scales from the parents' side to the third party's side. side. In re Donna W, W.,425 425 A.2d 1132 1132 ((1981).

1981). Maternal Maternal Grandmother must provide evidence that parents are either unfit, or that it would not be in the Child's best interest to reside primarily with parents. Maternal Grandmother's argument hinges on aaclaim of perceived unfitness of the parents; however, this Court found no compelling evidence of abuse. abuse, neglect, or incapacity incapacity presented by Maternal Grandmother. Maternal Grandmother failed to establish any exceptional circumstances that would necessitate her assumption of primary custody. The presumption favoring parental custody remains strong in cases of intact families, and the evidence presented does not support aafinding of unfitness or exceptional circumstances warranting aachange at this time. time, Mother and Father are currently an intact family, family. and they have been an intact family since

D.J.'s birth.

DJs birth. At one point, Mother provides that her her and Father Fath "have been together have bun together for for ... near ea years." (N.T., p. 31,7-11) twelve years." 31, 7-11).

After hearing all of the evidence presented at trial, this Court gave careful consideration to all sixteen custody factors, and the resulting final custody order was based on those considerations. 23 Pa.C.S. considerations. Pa.C.S. §$ 5328(a) 5328(a); (N.T., pp. pp. 156-162).

156-162). Although Although there were were factual factual discrepancies that occurred in the testimony of the parties, this Court ultimately found Mother and Father's and than Maternal Grandmother'g.

Father's testimony more credible than Grandmother's.

I. Pursuant Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P, Pa.R.A.P. 1925()(4(ii), 1925(b)(4)(ii), Maternal Grandmother's issues complained Maternal Grandmothers complained of on appeal should be waived for failure to concisely concisely identify each ruling ruling or error with sufficient detail.

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure state an Appellant's 1925(b) statement "shall " shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the Appellant intends to the Appellant challenge with sufficient to challenge detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge." Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii).

1925(b)¥4(ii). AA concise statement of errors must be specific enough enough for the trial court to identify and address each issue the Appellant wishes to raise on appeal. appeal. See In h re A.B.. 63 A.3d 345, 350 (Pa.Super. 345, 350 2013). A (Pa.Super. 2013). A 1925(b) statement "which which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all." Commorwealth Commonwealth v. v. Dowling, 788 A.2d Dowling,788 683, 686-687 (Pa. 683,686-687 2001). ""When (Pa. Super 2001). When aacourt has to guess what issues an appellant appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful meaningful review." Id. Id the In Dowling, the Appellant raised the following following issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement: 1925(b) statement erred and deprived the defendant from receiving The court erred receiving a afair trial by by prohibiting counsel from from cross examining based on aaprior inconsistent statement of an eyewitness on the issue of identification. identification. Id. at 686 686.

In its opinion. the trial eourt opinion, the court wrote. wrote: ""e As Defendant did not state which witness or what startrnvent statement

he is referring to, this Court cannot fully address this issue." Id. Id. On this issue, issue, the Court held held that the issue was waived because the Appellant's 1925(b) statement specific enough statement was not specific enough for fee the trial court to identify and address the issue. Id. Id In the instant matter, Maternal Grandmother's failure to set forth forth issues that she sought to sought to raise on appeal in aaspecific, concise manner hinders this Court's ability ability to prepare opinion for prepare an opinion meaningful review, thereby frustrating this Court's ability to engage in aathorough thorough and effective effective process. appellate review process second issue states: Maternal Grandmother's second "The trial court erred by failing to consider all relevant factors to determine the The well-being best interest of the child's safety, mental health, emotional needs, and well-being before making a a custody determination in accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328." Maternal Grandmother's third issue states. states:

"The trial court erred in its decision to remove child The child [D.J.] [D.J.J from Maternal Grandmother's home.home. Whom he lived with and has been his guardian since the age of three months old. old. Was arbitrary and not supported byby evidence presented presented during the trial. trial. In accordance with 23 PA.C.S. §$ 5328." 23PA.CS. 5328.° Maternal Grandmother's fourth issue states" The trial court erred in "The in failing to create a afull and complete record in order to fully address Child's best interests. In accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §" $" Maternal Grandmother's sixth issue states: The trial court erred in failing to address and "The and give appropriate appropriate wight weight to to the testimony and evidence presented regarding the Mother's and Father's inability to inability to co-parent with one another. coo-parent another. In accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328." eighth issue states: Maternal Grandmother's eighth "The trial court erred in failing to consider the impact of the new custody The custody on the child's mental stability after living with Appellant Appellant [Maternal Grandmother] [Maternal Grandmother] for for the whole of his life 7 years. years. Which wasn't accordance to 23 PA.C.S.

PA.C.S. §$ 5328."

The numerous Te - claims Maternal Gesundmnonther uneros clans Grandmother states above are blauket blanket tatcnts statements about

the Court's alleged misconduct that lack any specificity as to what Maternal Grandmother is challenge. This Court is unable to ascertain the reason that Maternal Grandmother is seeking to challenge. claiming that this Court erred due to the overly broad statements. This Court is unable to respond efficiently because Maternal Grandmother failed to be specific enough for this Court to identify and address each issue or evidence that Matemal Maternal Grandmother wishes to challenge challenge.

Maternal Grandmother submits vaguely prepared statements, not sufficiently specific enough to allow this Court to draft its opinion required required under 1925(a)-, 1925(a): thus, thus, preventing this Court from efficiently articulating the rationale underlying its decision and providing aabasis for Maternal Grandmother to determine the advisability of appealing that issue. This speculate This Court is left to speculate and which parts of testimony why Maternal Grandmother is challenging the determination, and Maternal Grandmother is challenging. Accordingly, these issues should be waived in its entirety because they lack specificity for the trial court to identify identify and address the issue that Maternal Grandmother sought to raise.

II. if Maternal Grandmother's IL. Even if Grandmother ' sissues complained of on appeal appeal are not waivable, the custody of trial court did not err in awarding Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody the child, D.J.

DJ.

In her first issue, Maternal Maternal Grandmother claims that the trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody to Mother and Father because neither Mother nor Father presented proof of having aajob or aastable place of residence. residence. Contrary to Maternal Grandmother's claim. claim, Mother and Father's credible testimony provided that that Mother and Father currently currently reside together, and that Father does in in fact have a astable source of income income.

During Mother's testimony, this Court asked Mothers testimony asked Mother Mother "you are saying you and dad live

together, correct," Mother responded together. correet." responded "[y]es." (N.T., p. [y]es."(NT.. p. 16, 13-14).

13.14). When asked when Mother and Father moved to their current address on Rowan Street, Mother responded stating stating "[t]he "[t]he end of 2022" and further clarifies that they moved in "September."(N.T., September." (N.T., p. p. 21, 9-12, 16). On cross- 16). On examination, Maternal Grandmother's then-counsel asked Mother, Mother, "[n]ow "[n]ow the address that we have on record and [Father] record for you and [Father] is 1617 Rowan Rowan Avenue or Rowan Rowan Street, correct?" Mother Mother answered, "[y]es." answered, (N.T., p. 39. [y]es." (NT., 39, 11-13). Counsel then further asked Mother, Mother, "[a]nd "[a jnd the occupants occupants that you indicate reside there are [D.J.], [D.JI, [A.J.], [A.J., [Father], [Father]. [Father's [Father's brother], brother]. as well as you," you." to replied "[mjm-hmm." which Mother replied Im]m-hmm." (N.T., (NT,,p.p. 39, 14-16).

14-16). Maternal Grandmother's then-counsel questioned Mother again stating "[s]lo "[s]o you always reside at at ... ... Rowan Avenue?" Mother responded, responded, "[y]es." "[yJes." (N.T., p. 48, 13-14). (N.T., p. 13-14). Counsel questioned Mother on the house further asking asking "[D.J.] which Mother answered [D.J.] has his own bedroom," to which answered "[y]es." p. 58, 9-10). [yJes." (N.T., p 9-10). When Mother "[t]hat's counsel asked Mother "[t[hat's aatwo-bedroom home," Mother provided that that "[i]t's [ilt's aathree bedroom." (N.T., p. bedroom."(N.T. p. $8, 58, 11-12). During Father's 11-12). During Father's testimony, testimony, Father Father supported supported Mother's Mother's testimony testimony that he that does live he does live with with Mother and the Mother and children, and the children, and Father Father further further provided that the provided that the parties have parties have (N.T., p. lived at the particular house for "almost two years." (N.T,, p. 71, 5-9).

71,5.9) With With regard to to job stability, Mother Mother and Father credibly testified Father credibly testified to the the fact that Father Father is currently aahome healthcare aid for his mother. occupation first came up mother The issue of Father's occupation up Maternal Grandmother's then-counsel. during Mother's cross-examination by Maternal then-counsel. Counsel asked Mother, Mother, "[Father] is not currently working, he...?" working. is he. ?" to which Mother responded, responded, "[y]es, "[yles, he is." is." (N.T., p. p. 59,10-12). When asked where he is currently currently working, working, Mother provided provided "[h]ome "[home mother." (N.T., healthcare for his mother." (N.T.. p. 59, 14). During Father's testimony, testimony, Father provided provided that he is currently working as aahome health health aid, and that his his hours are from from "eight eight in the the morning morning until

four in the afternoon." four afternoon_" (N- T-, p. 75, 1018). (NT.8. 10-18). Father further provided that he provided that he has has been working working job "for this job years. Almost nine." for eight years. nine." (N.T., p. 75, 20-21). (N.T.. p. 20-21) Maternal Grandmother testified that to her knowledge. knowledge, Mother does not have aapermanent permanent address. (N. address. T.,p. (N.T. p. 119,20-22).

119, 20-22). However, his Court found that the testimony provided by Mother provided by and Father, and supported by the cross-examination by then- counsel, to by Maternal Grandmother's then-counsel, credible. Mother and Father's testimony supports this Court's finding that Mother and Father be credible. do currently have aastable place of residence, and that Father does have aastable job. job. While reviewing the child custody custody factors on the record, this Court found in favor of Mother and Fathee Father with with regard to stability. This Court provides that "there there is aahome investigation investigation as to the current address that [Mother] and and [Father] [Father] live together. together. There is credible testimony testimony that [Mother] [Mother] and [Father] have always been together and live together."(N.T., together." (N.T., p. p. 158, 6-9) 6-9).

Maternal Maternal Grandmother's second, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth allegations allegations of error all custody factors. Maternal concern the amount of weight this Court gave to the enumerated custody Grandmother attempts to prescribe the amount of weight this Court should have given to each factor. In this regard, Maternal Grandmother's bases are contrary factor, contrary to law. law. Robinson v. Robinson, Robinson, (Pa. 645 A.2d 836, 838 1994); A. V. v. (Pa. 1994)A.V S. T. 87 A.3d 818, 820 • ST.. 820 (Pa.Super. 2014);SM. (Pa.Super. 2014 S.M. v. J.M., 811 • JM,81H A.2d 621, 623 (Pa.Super. 2002) (The (Pa.Super. 2002) (The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight weight the trial court evidence.). This Court gave consideration to all of the statutory places on evidence.). statutory factors, specifically specifically custody factors, and providing addressing and summarizing each of the statutorily enumerated custody providing that the custody decision was based on on those considerations. (N.T., pp. pp. 156-162).

156-162). Further, Further, as provided provided in 23 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$ 5323(d), the court shall delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in aawritten written opinion or order. This Court provided for provided the basis fro the

IO decision by reciting all factors under Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S.$§ 5328, findings under each 5328. along with this Court's findings factor, at the end of the trial.

In her second issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that this Court erred by failing failing to consider all relevant factors factors to determine the best interest of the the D.J.'s DJ's safety, safety, mental health, mental health, emotional needs and well-being before making aacustody determination. This Court carefully carefully considered aarange range of factors related to D.J.'s safety, mental DJ.'s safety, mental health, needs, and overall health, emotional needs, well-being. While Maternal Grandmother argues that not all factors were considered, considered, this Court's decision indicates that this Court weighed all factors in relation to DJ.s D.J.'s best interest interest. (N.T., pp 156-162).

156-162). This Court adhered to the requirements requirements set forth in Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$ 5328, 5328, which outlines the factors to consider in determining the the best interest of the includes the the child, which includes the safety, emotional needs, and the overall well-being well-being of the child. This Court's findings findings indicate aa demonstrating that it did not overlook any careful evaluation of these factors, demonstrating any pertinent pertinent considerations in considerations in its its determination. determination. This This Court Court put put the custody factors the custody factors on on the the record. record, going going each and evaluating which party the factor favors along through cach along with the supporting supporting evidence presented. (N.T., pp. 156-162). (NT., pp. 156-162).

In her third issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that this Court erred in its decision to arbitrary and remove D.J., from Maternal Grandmother's home because the decision was arbitrary and not not supported by evidence presented during the trial. trial. Under 23 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 5323, 5323, the trial court has the the authority to authority to make make custody custody determinations on evidence determinations based on evidence that reflects the that reflects the best best interests of the interests of the child. The court's decision to award Mother and Father primary child. physical custody primary physical custody of of D D.J. was J, was based on sufficient and credible evidence regarding regarding his welf welfare re custody factors a under the sixteen custody factors, which supports that the decision was neither arbitrary capricious. (N.T., arbitrary nor capricious. (N.T,, pp. pp. 156-162).

156-162)

In her fourth issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that ln that this Count Court erred in tailing failing to create

aafull and complete record in order to fully address D.J.'s DJ. s best interests. in 23 interests. As outlined in23 Pa.C.S.

Pa.CS. §$5328.

5328, the trial court is required to create aarecord that accurately reflects the proceedings. proceedings. The court maintained aathorough record throughout the trial, ensuring that all relevant relevant evidence and testimony were documented. After hearing all of the evidence presented at trial, this Court evaluated all sixteen custody factors on the record. record. (N.T., (N.T., pp. 156-162). pp. 156-162) erred in failing to In her fifth issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that this Court erred to address and appropriately weigh the testimony of Maternal Great Grandmother with with regard to the allegations of domestic violence between Mother and Father at their place of residence. residence. (N.T., (N.T., p. p 157, 10-23). This Court acknowledged 157,1023) acknowledged the testimonies Maternal Great Grandmother regarding presented. This Court allegations of domestic violence but weighed it against other evidence presented. provided that, "... • there's been lots of allegations thrown thrown around about abuse. abuse. [Mother] [Mother] and [Father] deny domestic violence between themselves. themselves. There There [are] [are] allegations that there has been some domestic violence between between [Maternal [Maternal Grandmother] and and [Mother].... [Mother]...II don't have any founded DHS reports. IIdon't have any police reports to back any of that up. Anything that has been thus far resolved by DHS has been been unfounded... including allegations of domestic violence between between [Mother] [Mother] and and [Father].... [Father].... I I don't think that it rises to the level of abuse and I'm I'm not not finding that that there is an ongoing risk of harm to [D.J.]" (N.T., [DJ]" (NT..D.p. 157, 10-23).

10-23) This Court is tasked with determining the credibility and relevance of testimony, and its decision reflects aabalanced consideration of all evidence without giving undue weight to any single source. While Maternal Great Grandmother's testimony was taken into consideration, the court source. is not required to give it undue weight if other evidence is deemed more relevant to D.J's D.J.'s best interests. Further, Mother testified credibly that there was no history of domestic violence between Mother and Father.

Father (N.T., p. 16,15-18: (N.T,, p. N.T., p. 16, 15-18; N.T.. 40, 4-8; N.T.. p. 40,4-8; N.T., p. 4-6). Father also p. 55, 4-6).

testified credibly that there has not been been any domestic violence between himself and Mother Mother.

(N.T., • (NT, p. 70, 9-10) 9-10).

In her sixth issue, Maternal Maternal Grandmother claims that this Court erred in failing failing to address regarding Mother and and give appropriate weight to the testimony and evidence presented regarding Father's inability to co-parent with one another. This issue is waived as Maternal Grandmother had not raised the issue of Mother and Father's ability to co-parent during the trial on August 12, 2024. Further, the ability to co-parent is not one of the sixteen enumerated custody factor that the court must consider when awarding physical physical custody under 23 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §$ 5328.

Court erred in violating In her seventh issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that this Count violating Maternal Grandmother's rights to aafair trial by by demonstrating favoritism towards Mother and "Igot you" during the trial, indicating aapredetermined decision to award Father by stating "I Mother and Father custody of DJ, D.J. Any remarks attributed to this Court, such as as "Igot you," I got proceedings. At certain points should be contextualized within the broader proceedings. points of testimony, testimony, this "[g]ot Court stated, "[g " Igot it" to verbalize only an understanding of the context of the Jot it" or "I testimony, not not aajudgement about the testimony. Further, this Court made these types types of remark remark Grandmother. When Maternal Grandmother was testifying to all parties, including Maternal Grandmother. testifying to FaceTimes phone calls and Face with D.J., this Court Times with Court asked her whether Father was allowed to call Maternal Grandmother to initiate communication with D.J.

DJ. Maternal "[n]o.

Maternal Grandmother stated, "[nJo [D.J.] has aaphone" to which this Count [DJ] Court responded, responded, "[o]kay. it." (N.T., p. "[o]kay. Got it."(N.T,, p. 149, 2-5). Again, 149.2-5), Again, this comment this comment was only demonstrating was only demonstrating an an understanding understanding of of the testimony, not the testimony, not aajudgment judgment about about the testimony. At no point did this Court state "I "Igot got you" any party. you" to any party. The court's ultimate decision was based on aathorough evaluation of the evidence and without bias to any any one party, party, maintaining the integrity integrity of the trial.

I13l issue, Maternal Grandmother claims that In her last is, erred in that this Court erred in falling to consider failing to consider the impact of the new custody on D.J.'s mental stability after living with Maternal Grandmother D.J's mental years. There for the whole of his seven years. There was conflicting testimony as to whom D.J. with.

D.J resided with However, this Court found that Mother and Father credibly crcdibly testified that D.J. had resided with them from birth until Maternal Grandmother was awarded sole physical custody in 2022, at aa hearing in which Mother and Father failed to appear. When asked asked "[b]ut you always "[bJut you always lived with [D.J.]," Mother answered [DJ]," answered "[y]es." "[yJes." (N.T., p. 22, (N.T.,p. 22,11-14). asked "how long did you 1H-14). When asked you live in a a house without without [D.J.]," answered "[D.J.] [D.J.]," Mother answered [DJ.] was what? Five, four? Five," providing support tinlcline of the 2022 Order granting for the timeline granting Maternal physical custody.

Maternal Grandmother sole physical custody. (N.T., (N.T p. 22,21-23). p. 22, 21-23).

Although this Court did consider D.J.'s DJ's mental stability after living living with Maternal Grandmother, this Court also evaluated the potential potential benefits of the new custody arrangement arrangement for D.J.

D.J, to be with Mother, Father, and A.J.

A.J, This Court found it compelling compelling to allow Mother and Father to continue living as an intact family, family. This Court acknowledged acknowledged that "these two boys boys have each other" with regard to D.J. and A.J. (N.T., D.J, and (N.T., p. p. 159, 3-8). In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S I59,3-8). Pa.C.S.

§5328, the court weighed the potential advantages of this new custody arrangement, $5328, arrangement, ultimately ultimately D.J.'s best prioritizing D.J's best interests and future well-being well-being in the decision-making decision-making process. process. This Court stated that that "I think anybody's actually.

I don't think actually... trying to keep D.J D.J. away away from anyone." anyone." (N.T., p. 157, 7-9). Further, tthis 157,7-9). his Court found that "[D.J.] [DJ] seems to be emotionally emotionally taken care of all -— at both households." (N.T., at all (N.T., p. 160,20-21).

160, 20-21). This Court recognized recognized the existence of an emotional bond between Maternal Grandmother and D.J.

D.I, Thus, this Court awarded Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody every other weekend from Fridays school/camp to Fridays after school/camp

Monday morning, orig, drop school/camp to allow drop off at slol/sup allow Matenial Grandmother to continue to have Maternal Calothr

D.J. some custodial time with D.J CONCLUSION After hearing testimony from all parties and reviewing the relevant evidence, the Court found that the best interest of D.J. would be to award Mother and Father primary physical Maternal Grandmother partial physical custody and award Maternal physical custody every other weekend. The The majority of the errors of which Maternal Grandmother complains of on appeal lack any basis in the evidentiary record, applicable statutes, or case law. In In these issues, Maternal Grandmother fails to set set forth specific, appealable issues that she is seeking review of in aaconcise manner manner.

For the foregoing reasons, itit is respectfully requested that the Order of August 12, 2024 be affirmed affirmed.

BY BY THE COURT: THE COURT.

I DATE: DATE- a . true ~ Ihereby certify & hereby copy appears in in the ts_Ai. that ve sf of the the records the foregoing foregoing original as same is a true copy '_ds of thisasCourt. is original of this same Court.

I Honorable Betsy Wahl Honorable Betsy

appears the fe0Of 2.,A..g%ass es lesitt co0mi C;.ERK : FAMIL COURT I