Moss, T. v. Moss, C.

J-A04001-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 TARA MOSS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CRAIG MOSS : : Appellant : No. 1126 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered July 23, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2015-FC-0000335-03

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 24, 2026 Craig Moss (“Father”) appeals from the order granting Father’s petition to lift supervision requirements, denying Tara Moss’s (“Mother”) petition for modification and contempt, and thereby leaving in place the status quo of the parties’ custody arrangement. After our thorough review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

The procedural history of this matter is incredibly litigious.1 Mother and Father are the biological parents of three minor children, A.N.M., X.N.M., and

____________________________________________

J-A04001-26

A.E.M (“Children”). Mother and Father are married but have been separated for many years. Children have been living primarily with Mother.

On April 5, 2023, Mother filed a complaint for custody seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of Children. In her complaint, Mother requested that the court limit Father to supervised physical custody and order Father to participate in a “Threat of Harm Evaluation” with a licensed professional. See Complaint, 4/5/23, at ¶ 17. Leading up to the custody trial, Father proceeded to file numerous motions and petitions.

On December 29, 2023, the trial court held a custody trial. On January 8, 2024, after consideration of the evidence and the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 custody factors, the trial court entered a final order of custody that awarded the parties shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father supervised partial physical custody on alternating weekends. We dismissed Father’s appeal from the January 2024 custody order on the basis that he failed to preserve any issues on appeal and his appellate brief had substantial defects precluding meaningful appellate review. See Moss v. Moss, 148 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. filed June 6, 2024) (unpublished memorandum).

The trial court summarized the procedural history following the above appeal, relevant to the instant appeal, as follows: On October 15, 2024, Mother filed petition for contempt and petition for modification of court order, at which time the matter was reassigned to [Judge Kelley L. Margetas]. On November 1, 2024, Father filed an answer to [Mother’s] petition for contempt and petition for modification of court order. On November 20, 2024, the court entered an interim order and scheduled a pretrial -2- J-A04001-26 conference for January 24, 2025. On December 4, 2024, Mother filed a motion to continue the pretrial conference due to a scheduling conflict with her counsel, which was granted over Father’s objection, rescheduling the pretrial to February 28, 2025.

A pretrial conference was held on February 28, 2025, at which time there were a number of matters outstanding, so the conference was continued until April 22, 2025. In the interim, Father filed a petition for reconsideration and motion for leave to file petition for reconsideration nunc pro tunc of a directive originally issued by [the prior Judge], but incorporated without objection into the February 28, 2025 pretrial order, directing disclosure of his protected mental health records. The court expressly granted nunc pro tunc reconsideration of the orders limited to the issue of Father’s mental health records, which was consolidated to be argued at the April 22, 2025, pretrial conference. On April 22, 2025, the court directed that Father was not required to turn over the previously ordered mental health records and scheduled trial for July 18, 2025.

Following the pretrial conference, Father continued to file repeated motions with the court as follows, the majority of which were deferred to the previously set trial date. On April 25, 2025, Father filed a petition to lift supervision requirements. On May 20, 2025, he filed a petition for risk assessment and motion to compel (CYF- related). On June 11, 2025, he filed a request for permission to bring equipment into the Judicial Center, which was granted. On June 16, 2025, he filed a document entitled [“]Compliance with Court Order or Official Reports[”], to which no response appeared to be required. On June 24, 2025, he filed a petition for sanctions and declaratory orders. On July 3, 2025, he filed a motion to amend witness list and request for appearance via Zoom, the latter of which was granted.

On July 3, 2025, Mother filed an application for continuance of the trial, which was opposed and was denied by the court. On July 7, 2025, an emergency motion to quash subpoena served upon a non-party witness was filed by WellSpan Health and Julia F.

Arpino, MD. The same day, Father filed a response and memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to quash. The motion was deferred to the start of trial, and was ultimately granted on July 18, 2025.

-3- J-A04001-26

On July 18, 2025, the [court] conducted a full day custody trial in this matter. Notably[,] at the outset of the trial, the court attempted to set forth all of the outstanding matters currently before it, given the voluminous, rambling and vexatious paperwork that was continuously being filed by Father in this matter, giving rise to conflation over what issues were even before the Court.

At the conclusion of the trial, the [court] granted Father’s petition to lift supervision requirements, and denied Mother’s petition for modification and contempt, leaving in place the status quo with Mother maintaining primary physical custody and Father having unsupervised partial physical custody on alternating weekends.

Additionally, the court denied Father’s petition for risk assessment and motion to compel filed May 20, 2025, as well as his petition for sanctions and declaratory order filed June 24, 2025; the motion to amend witness list was dismissed as moot.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/25, at 7-9 (footnotes and unnecessary capitalization omitted). Father timely appealed and filed a contemporaneous statement of errors. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial Court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).

On appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review: I. The court erred by refusing to vacate an order procured by deliberate fraud and perjury, as Pennsylvania court’s possess the inherent power to rescind orders obtained through fraud on the court.

II. The trial court abdicated its statutory duty under Kayden’s Law by refusing to compel disclosure of CYS records and order a risk assessment, thereby ignoring substantial evidence of harm to the children.

III. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by excluding from evidence Mother’s criminal convictions spanning from 2014 through 2025, including guilty pleas involving domestic violence and conduct against Father. This information was directly relevant to the custody determinations under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 (a)(2)

-4- J-A04001-26 and 5329(a), and frustrat[es] the safety-first focus of Act 8 of 2024 (Kayden's Law).

IV. Did the court further err by discounting the undisputed record of Mother’s recent hospitalizations, ignoring the principle that “acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties" can equally endanger children and must be weighed under § 5328(a)(2)?

V. Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit [Father]’s trial exhibits and thereby preventing the creation of a complete appellate record, contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 1921?

VI. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it granted Father 44 days of visitation per year and ignoring the express judicial goal of 50/50 custody.

VII. Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to articulate specific findings of fact and a reasoned analysis of the factors of 23 Pa.C.S,A. § 5328(a), thereby precluding meaningful appellate review?

Appellant’s Brief, at 1-2 (cleaned up).

Our scope and standard of review of custody decisions is well-settled: [T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it.... However, this broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination.... Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion.

[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial -5- J-A04001-26 court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration of the best interest of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion.

The test is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s conclusions.

C.M. v. M.M., 215 A.3d 588, 591 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted; brackets in original). “Simply stated, [t]he test is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s conclusions and the conclusions are grounded in a comprehensive evaluation of the best interest of the child.” H.C.Z. v. J.K.Z., 236 A.3d 1106, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed April 17, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (citation omitted; brackets in original).2 After reviewing the record, Father’s brief, and the Honorable Kelley L.

Margetas’ well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, we conclude Father’s issues merit no relief. Judge Margetas’ opinion effectively disposes of the questions presented on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/25, at 11-20 (Finding: (1) The time to appeal Father’s first issue has substantially passed as the December 29, 2023 custody order is almost two years old, and that Father already had the opportunity to appeal the order, but failed to properly preserve his issues; (2) Father’s claim that the court erred by excluding evidence of Mother’s criminal convictions is belied by the record because the court allowed Father to testify regarding the substance of many of Mother’s

____________________________________________

-6- J-A04001-26 convictions, further Mother’s criminal convictions predate the custody trial and would have limited relevance to the current modification, and the court properly declined hearsay statements to be read into the record; (3) the court did not erred by denying Father’s subpoena for CYS records because that request was previously denied by a court of coordinate jurisdiction; (4) the court properly denied Father’s request to compel the production of Mother’s medical records based on testimony and argument provided, leading to the court’s concerns that Father likely unlawfully accessed Mother’s protected medical information; (5) Father cites to incorrect law by relying on Section 5329.1 and, in any event, Father failed to timely compel Mother to complete a risk assessment; (6) the court properly refused to admit Father’s binder of unidentified and unauthenticated documents into the trial record because Father failed to properly present, authenticate and/or request admission of these numerous documents; (7) the trial court went through the custody factors and stated its findings on the record, and also incorporated by reference the prior custody trial and findings of fact, as the parties were seeking modification, not to relitigate a full custody trial).3

____________________________________________

-7- J-A04001-26

We affirm on the basis of the trial court’s September 25, 2025 opinion and commend the trial court for its notable patience in dealing with this contentious case.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/24/2026

-8- Circulated 03/03/2026 09:33 AM York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY DIVISION TARA N. MOSS, 2015-F€-000335-03 2015-FC-000335-03 2015-F€-000335-03 Plaintiff/Appellee Plaintiff/Appellcc Plaintiff/Appellee 1126 1126 1126 MDA 2025 v. CRAIG CRAIG E.

CRAIGE.

E. MOSS, Defendant/Appellant Appellant

MEMORANDUM PURSUANT UM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT UM PURSUANT TO RULE RULE l1925(Q2(ii)E RULE 925(a)(2)(ii) 1925(Q2(ii)E OF THE THE THE RULES OFAPPELLATE OF APPELLATE OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE of The Court received a Notice of 15, of Appeal, docketed on August 15, 2025, 15, 2025, 2025, that Appellant, Craig E. Moss (hereinafter "Father) Craig Craig Court Father") appeals to the Superior Cow1 Father) Court of Pennsylvania from the in 2025. in the above-captioned matter on July 18, 2025.

Order entered in Court 2025. The Cou11 Court now issues this in Memorandum Opinion in of 18. of its July 18, in support of 18. 2025, Order.

On April 5, April 5, 5, 2023, Appellee, Appellee, Tara N. Moss (hereinafter "Mother"), filed a Complaint for Custody Custody seeking of of the three subject seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of ect children ect A.N.M..

A.N.M., X.N.M. A.N.M.. X.N.M, of X.N.M. and A.E.M. Mother sought for Father to be awarded rights of of supervised partial physical custody.

of On May 30, 2023, Father filed a Motion to Compel Hair Follicle Drug Testing of of Mother.''1 On June 1, 1, 2023, 1, 2023, Custody.

2023, Father filed a Petition for Emergency Custody.

Custody. Father alleged that the children were unsafe in Mother's ss care due to Mother facing of ing the possibility of of incarceration of and her alleged threats to the safety of of of two of in of the children in in a criminal matter docketed at CP-

II A cursory cursory cursory review ofof show of the docket will show show that, throughout this case, Father has repeatedly filed resulting documents resulting resulting in the case being bounced between judges and creating confusion over what matters matters scheduling matters are/were pending before the court at any given time, as well as complicating the scheduling scheduling of of continued of them. The continued of continued filing of motions of excessive, and at times frivolous, motions motions unfortunately continues to this date.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

67-CR-0004362-2023. On 67-CR-0004362-2023. 3, 2024, On January 3, Honorable Amber the Honorable 2024, the Amber A. dismissed Kraft di A. Kraft of the two of smissed two the children, and the remaining three charges, including the terroristic threats charge relating to the children. charge for stalking'2 related to Father. In to Father. In his June I, his June Petition for Emergency Custody, 2023. Petition 1, 2023, Custody.

Father theft of CP-67-CR-0002524-2023, for theft docketed at CP-67-CR-0002524-2023, Father also raised Mother'ss criminal charges docketed of property lost etc. by in another harassment -- communication repeatedly in by mistake3' and harassment another manner.4' wherein Father is each count. victim in each is the alleged victim 2023. the Honorable N. Christopher Menges, On June 13, 2023, Father's emergency Menges. regarding Father's petition and comply with the requested drug testing and to comply Mother to ordered Mother to compel, ordered motion to and motion was charged with terroristic made notable find ings. While Judge Menges noted that Mother was threats, he also noted that Father was declared a threat of various of harm by the conciliator for various reasons including would not including but not limited to Father's indication to the conciliator that he would follow any custody order. Accordingly, Judge Menges continued the matter for decision by deeision by Judge Steven Stambaugh. Judge Menges also made the following statement and order: Additionally, aa copy of Additionally, this order of this is being served order is on the served on Solicitor for the Solicitor York for York County Offices of Children, Youth, and Families and a representative from Offices of from York County Offices Children. Youth, and of Children, and Families ilies is ordered to be at the pre-trial conference on July 17 17"h at IE:30 :30 p.m. in front of of Judge Stambaugh baugh because it there is appears there it appears some possibility these is some children these children are since it dependent since are dependent neither mother that perhaps neither appears that it appears mother nor father nor father may be able to may enjoy majority to enjoy majority physical custody of these children of these children hecause of because various offenses, of various threats of offenses, threats harm and of harm so forth and so forth in this rather in this rather complicated situation. complicated situation.

2I8PaCS. $2706(aX1) Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)( I) Pa.C.S. $3924 318Pa.cC.S. § 3924 418Pa.CS. $ 2709(a)(7) Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)07) York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Order June 13, of June Order of at 2-3 13, 2023,, at added). No 2-3 (emphasis added). from York representative from No representative County Offices York County Offices of Children, of I4, appeared at the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. On June 14, ldren, Youth, and Families appeared 2023, 23, 2023.

Father filed a Petition for Reconsideration, which Judge Menges denied on June 23.

2023. Father On July 28, 2023, Father filed a Motion to Recuse alleging.

2023, Father things. that alleging, among other things, Judge Stambaugh, in "deliberate in ·'del and wellbeing iberate indifference to the safety and wellbeing of children." of the children,•· demonstrating Father's petition. Motion to to rule on Father's towards Father, refused to demonstrating bias and hostility towards at 14. On August 3, Recuse at~ 3, 2023, an Order denying Father·s 2023. Judge Stambaugh issued an Father's rccusal recusal motion, motion.

On August 14. in Mother had. in of Court alleging Mother Father filed a Motion for Contempt of 2023, Father 14, 2023, greater detail, taken steps, including contacting greater detail. contacting the Pennsylvania of Probation and Parole.

Pennsylvania Board of Parole, to frustrate Father's communication with the children. of Father, to who has oversight of children. On August 15, issued an 2023, Judge Stambaugh issued 15, 2023, Order consolidating Father's an Order Father's contempt motio motion with with the the custody trial, which custody trial, set to was set \.vhich was to begin on September 5, begin on 5, 2023.

2023.

16, 2023.

On August 16, 2023, Father filed a Notice of Father filed of Proposal to Call Additional Witnesses. to Call Father sought to call Kiana Jackson, an employee of Father of the York County District Attorney's Office, as well as conciliator, Amy as Amy E.W. Ehrhart. Esquire. On September W. Ehrhart, 2023, Judge Stambaugh September 5, 2023, E.W. Ehrhart. On September issued an Order quashing the subpoena issued to Conciliator Amy E.W. September 7. 2023, 7. 2023. Judge Stambaugh issued an Order Order granting the the York County District Attorney·s Attorney's Motion Quash Subpoena relating to Ms. Jackson. to Quash The custody triall apparently commenced on or about September 2023, but was September 7, 2023. rescheduled to continue on Friday, October rescheduled October 20, 20. 2023.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Onn September 26, 2023., Father September 26, of Defendants [sic) Father filed a Removal of Officials [sic] [sic] Officials Documents II. Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father'ss 2023, Judge Stambaugh II. On October 20, 2023, ·'Removal IL. ' Removal of Defendants [sic] Official Documents It: Also Motion to led aa Motion filed Father fi 2023,, Father 26, 2023 Also oon September 26, Therein., Father Quash. Therein, to Quash. asserted Father asserted that Judge Stambaugh was acknowledging and condoning Mother's violation of the Controlled lation of Substance, in seeking to introduce.

Aet in Device and Cosmetic Act Substance. Drug, Device via a prescription introduce, via prescription bottle abandoned by Father at Mother's residence,5 evidence that Father was refusing to take mental fusing to health 2023. Judge Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father'ss 20. 2023, medications. On October 20, health medications.

Motion Quash. to Q Motion to On September 28, Father filed a Motionn to Order CYF 2023. Father 28. 2023. CYF to Supervised [sic] Father for 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order Denying Father's Motion to Visits. On October 20, 2023, for Visits.

Order CYF Order C to Supervised [sic] YF to for Visits.

Father for [sie] Father Visits.

On October 12. ed aa Motion to 2023. Father filed 12, 2023, to Dismiss for Mootness claiming. ing, inter alia, that Mother. as of bail as aa condition of in her case docketed at CP-67-C bail in CP-67-€R-0004362-2023, R-0004362-2023, was disallowed from having disallowed from any contact having any with the contact with the alleged victims, victims, which which included included the the subject children subject children X.N.M. E.M. As X.N.M. and A.E.M. sue for custody.

As such, Father asserted that Mother lacked standing to sue of the custody action for mootness. On October 17. 2023, Judge Father demanded dismissal of an Order scheduling Stambaugh entered an Father's Motion to Dismiss for Mootness at the scheduling Father's upcoming trial 20. 2023. trial on October 20, 2023.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Also on October 12, 2023, Motion for Contempt of Father filed a Motion 2023, fat Father of Court in which Father alleged that Mother Mother's A.N.M.. who was in Mother's to speak with A.N.M., Mother had frustrated his ability to in the custody custody, and X.N.M. and A.E.M., who were in Mother's adult of Mother's custody of adult daughter Kaden Dennis.

On October 19, 2023, Continuance seeking 2023. Mother's counsel filed an Application for Continuance seeking to Mother was admitted to the hospital on continue the rescheduled trial date and stating that Mother October 18, 2023, was pending surgery, and that Mother would not be released for several days.

October Father opposed this continuance request on the basis did not and did basis that Mother was represented and the continuance and 2023, Judge Stambaugh granted the need to be present for trial. On October 19, 2023, scheduled trial to continue on the earliest available 20.

2023. On October 20, of December 29, 2023. available date of 2023, Father filed a Motion to Dismiss for Mootness that, on its face. appears to track the language and arguments of 2023. Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. On October October 12, 2023, of his October 20, Order scheduling 20. 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order scheduling Father's outstanding outstanding Motions to Dismiss for Mootness and for Contempt of of of Court to be heard at the continued trial date of December 29. 2023.

December 29, Therein. Father again On October 20, 2023, Father filed a Motion for Joinder. Therein, again asserted that, due to Mother's CP-67-€R-0004362-2023, in CP-67-C Mother's bail conditions in R-0004362-2023, X.N.M. and A.E.M. were to be the eldest step- taken from Mother. Referring to a Ms. Dennis, who from context appears to step- sister. supra, father sister, Kaden Dennis, referenced supra, Father stated that no court had granted Kaden Dennis Dennis in parentis loco parentis of the Interim Order, in contravention of parentis status, that Ms. Dennis, in Order. refused to allow allow Father to speak to the he joined nceded to be therefore. Ms. Dennis needed and that, therefore, the children, and joined in the custody custody could be held action so that she could 1, 2023,, the in contempt. On October 31, ld in 1he Honorable N, N.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Menges entered an Order scheduling Father's Christopher Menges Christopher 2023. Motion for Joinder Father's October 20, 2023, the continued trial date on December to be heard at the 2023.

29, 2023.

December 29.

Also on October of Custody Order.

October 20, 2023, Father filed a Motion for Modification of Father made numerous assertions, including that, in of the conciliator's finding that Father in spite of nor accused, nor Father has never been accused. might pose a threat to the children off psychological harm, as Father convicted, of any crimes against children then the Court should not require his visitation to be convicted. of supervised. also. again, questioned the propriety of supervised. Father also, for the two of Ms. Dennis caring for subjcet of children who were the subject terroristic threats allegations against Mother. of Father'ss terroristic On November On Therein, Father Court. Therein, of Court.

Motion for Contempt of filed aa Motion Father filed 2023. Father 6. 2023, November 6, Father avers, inter avers, alia, that inter alia, Mother and that Mother Ms. Dennis and Ms. continued to Dennis continued flout the to flout Interim Order the Interim Order allowing Father contact. 8. 2023. contaet. On November 8, 2023.Judge scheduling a hearing Judge Stambaugh entered an Order scheduling Father's Motion for Contempt for November 22, 2023. At the hearing, Judge Stambaugh on Father's Father's Motion for Contempt with the upcoming entered an Order consolidating hearing on Father's custody trial. custody Novemher 29, 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order directing Mother to produce On November the upcoming trial. the children for the On November 2023. Father filed November 29, 2023, of Documents. On led a Petition to Order Subpoena of 7. 2023., Judge Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father's Petition to Order December 7, of Documents based upon a finding that Father had failed to identify himself Subpoena of himself as belonging in 23 Pa.C.S.A. of the enumerated classifications in belonging to one of Pa.CS.A. §$ 6340(a) (Release of of information in 3490.911 (Persons to whom child abuse in confidential reports) and 55 Pa. Code§$ 3490.9 information 2023, Judge Stambaugh Decemher 7, 2023, on December available). Additionally, on made available). shall be made information shall Stambaugh

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 entered entered an Order Granting Granting York County Children, Youth & Families' Motion to Quash Subpoena Subpoena for the same reasons.

concluded. and Judge On December 29, 2023, the rescheduled custody trial was held and concluded, Stambaugh entered a Final Order of Stambaugh of Custody Following Custody Trial, Trial, which was docketed on January January 8, 8, 2024. Judge Judge Stambaugh awarded the parties shared legal custody, awarded Mother primary primary physical physical custody, custody, and awarded Father supervised partial physical custody on alternating Judge Stambaugh also issued a contemporaneous Opinion in Support weekends. Judge Support of of Final Order of Custody, which was also docketed on January 8, 2024. of 2024. Father filed On January 25, 2024, filed a Notice of of Appeal of of Judge Stambaugh'ss Final Order.

Following of Orders and filings regarding the sufficiency Following a flurry of sufficieney of of Father's Fathers concise statement, statement. the Superior 2024. dismissing his of Pennsylvania entered a Memorandum on June 6, 2024, Superior Court of appeal on the basis that his Rule l1925(b) appeal 925(b) statement failed to preserve any issues and/or his brief had substantial defects precluding meaningful appellate review.

2024. Mother filed Petition for Contempt and Petition for Modification of On October 15, 2024, Court Order, at which time the matter was reassigned to the undersigned."6 On November 1, I, 2024. Father filed an Answer to Plaintiffs 2024, Plaintiffs Petition Petition for Contempt and Petition for Modification of of Order and scheduled a Court Order. On November 20, 2024, the Court entered an Interim Order Decemher 4, 2024, pretrial conference for January 24, 2025. On December 2024. Mother Mother filed a motion to continue the pretrial conference due to a scheduling conflict with her counsel, which was granted over Father's objection, rescheduling the pretrial to February 28, 28. 2025.

2025, of October Effective as of October 9, 2024, Judge Stambaugh is currently suspended by Order Order of of the Commonwealth of of Court oof Judicial Pennsylvania Court Judicial Discipline.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 pretrial conference was held on February 28, A pretrial 2025, at which time there were a number 28. 2025, of interim.

In the interim, 2025. In of matters outstanding, so the conference was continued until Aprill 22, 2025.

Father filed aa Petition for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to to File Petition for Reconsideration Nune Tune of Nunc Pro Tune of a directive originally issued by Judge Stambaugh, but incorporated without objection into the of order. directing disclosure of the February 28, 2025 pretrial order, his protected mental health records. The Court expressly his tune reconsideration munc pro tune expressly granted nunc of of Father'ss mental health records, which was consolidated to of the Orders limited to the issue of to be be 2025. pretrial argued at the April 22, 2025, pretrial conference. On April 22, 2025, the Court directed that father over the previously Father was no t required to turn over mental health records and scheduled previously ordered mental trial 18. 2025. trial for July 18, conference. Father continued to filee repeated motions with the Following the pretrial conference, Court as follows, the majority trial date. On April of which were deferred to the previously set trial ority of 25, 20. 2025, he filed a Lift Supervision Requirements. On May 20, ed a Petition to Lift 25, 2025., Father filed 11,, 2025, he filed Petition for Risk Assessment and Motion to Compel (CYF-related). On June 11 led a the Judicial Request for Permission to Bring Equipment into the Judicial Center, which was granted. On June 16, 2025, he filed of Official Reports, Count Order or led a document entitled Compliance with Court Reports, to required. On June 24, 2025, he filed a Petition for Sanctions which no response appeared to be required.

3, 2025, he filed a Motion to Amend Witness and Declaratory Orders. On July 3, tness List and Request Request for Appearance fo was granted. which was of which latter of the latter Zoom. the via Zoom, Appearance via On 3, 2025, Mother filed On July 3, an Application for Continuance of ed an the trial, which was of the opposed and was denied by the Court. On July 7, 2025, an Emergency Emergency Motion to Quash Quash filed by WellSpan Subpona Served Upon a Non-Party Witness was filed Health and Julia F. Arpino, WellSpan Health Arpino, MD. The same MD. The Memorandum of Father filed aa Response and Memorandum same day, Father in O of Law in to the Opposition to the York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Motion to of trial, and was ultimately granted on to Quash. The motion was deferred to the start of July 18, 2025.

18, 2025.

July 18, 2025,, the undersigned conducted a full day custody trial in On July in this matter.

Notably that at the outset of outstanding of the outstanding of the trial, the Court attempted to set forth all of matters currently before it, given the voluminous, rambling and vexatious paperwork that was continuously being filed by Father conflation over what issues were rise to conflation this matter, giving rise Father in this before the Court.'7 even before At the conclusion of trial. the of the trial, the undersigned granted granted Father's Lift Father's Petition to Lift Supervision Requirements, and denied Mother·s Modification and Contempt. leaving Mother's Petition for Modification leaving in place the Mother maintaining primary physical custody with Mother status quo with the status Father having custody and Father unsupervised partial physical custody on unsupervised partial denied Court denied the Court weekends. Additionally, the on alternating weekends.

his well as his 20. 2025, as well Father'ss Petition for Risk Assessment and Motion to Compel filed May 20, Petition for Sanctions and Declaratory Order June 24, 2025; Order filed June 2025; the Motion to Amend Witness List was dismissed as moot.

of Appeal to Superior Court and Statement On August 14, 2025, Father filed his Notice of Father complains the following: of Matters. Therein, Father 1. The court erred by failing to vacate the prior I. The prior custody order entered on December 29, 2023, even after Father presented clear and convincing 2023, evidence, through expert ncing evidence. expert

77N.T. 7/18/25.

N.T. 7/ 2-7. Indeed, the Court pp. 2-7.

18/25, pp. Father to identif Court repeatedly asked Father his voluminous in his identify where in voluminous filings he filings he advised the he requested primary custody, to which he the court had not. See id. he had court he id. at 55 ("Prior (Prior to the filing of the filing of risk assessment, that the risk not denoted that is not any filing.") denoted in any filing.").. This appears be inaccurate, as appears to be as buried in in his Answer his modification petition.

Mother's modification Answer to Mother averment requesting single averment petition, was a single requesting primary. primary. ··Judges not "Judges are not Ilike pigs, hunting for ikc pigs, truffles buried in for trufnes that matter, in in briefs-or, for that in the of pages thousands of the thousands of record that pages of accompany them." Novak accompany Nomk 1·. v. Novak, 321 A.3d Xol'ak, 321 924 (Pa. A.3d 924 Ct. 2024) Super. Ct. Pa. Super. 2024) (citing Langman "v.· K<~ (citing Langman evstone r.,tone Vat'l 81111k Nat'/ Trust (Co., Bank &Trust F.Supp.2d 69 ·o., 672 F.Supp.2d 691, 694 (E.D. Pa. 2009) 1. 694 2009)

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 prior decision was procured by perjured testimony, that the prior petjured testimony from Mother.

Under fundamental principles of due process and judicial integrity, a custody order based on fraud must be vacated and re-examined anew.

2. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by excluding 2. Mother's evidence Mother"s ing from evidence 2014 through criminal convictions spanning from 2014 2025, including guilty pleas ugh 2025, pleas involving domestic information was This infom1ation domestic violence and conduct against Father. This directly relevant to the Pa.C.S. [Sections] 5328(a)(2) the custody determination under 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)02) and 5329(a).

3. The court erred and abused its Father'ss subpoena to York its discretion by denying Father" and County Children and Youth Services, which soug ht ht release of investigation of investigation report confirming child A.E.M. the exclusion of this highly confirming that Mother assaulted the minor child relevant Father's case. levant and credible evidence severely prejudiced Father's to compel 4. The trial court erred by denying Father's request to compel the production of of Mother's medical records, despite having previously ordered Father to produce his own medical records. This of evidentiary standards violated This unequal application of court's ability to assess Mother'ss Father's due process and significantly impaired the courts fitness as a custodial parent.

5. trial court erred and abused its discretion by refusing to order a risk assessment 5. The trial off Mother under 23 Pa.C.S. [Section] (Section] 5329.1,I. even though the record included criminal convictions and allegations of abuse that legally required such an assessment be performed. to be Father'ss due process rights by refusing 6. The trial court violated Father· fusing to admit any of Father's Father's exhibits into the trial record, record. thereby depriving him of the ability present li ty to present relevant evidence, rebut false allegations, and meaningfully support his claims.

7. court abused its discretion by granting Father only 44 days of custody 7. The trial cou11 custody per per would be in year, despite unrebutted expert testimony establishing that shared custody would in child and that the best interest of the child that prior restrictions were based on false fals e information.

Mother's counsel to repeatedly submit 8. The trial court erred by allowing Mother·s submit false statements without objection or consequences, declarations and misleading statements consequences, which in a resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding and prejudiced Father's right Father's right to a fairr hearing.

trial court committed reversible error by failing to address or make findings 9. The ~rial findings on the sixteen (16) 5328(a). the 16) custody factors required under 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5328(a).

18. 2025, custody order legally absence of such findings renders the July 18, legally deficient. ficient.

Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, ined of Pages 1-2, Appeal, Pages 1-2,$~~ J1.9, -9.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

The The appellate appellate court's scope well settled in of review in a custody matter is well scope and standard of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania: In reviewing reviewing a custody of the broadest type and custody order, our scope is of and our standard is abuse ofof discretion. We must accept findings of of the trial court that that are supported by by competent competent evidence of of record, as our role does not include making independent independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of of credibility credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge weight of who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we are not bound by Ultimately. the the trial court's deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, courts conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the test is whether the trial court's record. We may reject the conclusions of evidence ofrecord. of the trial court only if if they involve an error ofof law, or are unreasonable in light ofof the sustainable findings of of the trial court.

v. Graves, 265 A.3d 688, Graves v. 688. 693 (Pa. Super. 2021). ).

Issue 1I In his first issue, Father complains the Court erred by failing to vacate the prior custody order entered on December 29, 2023, Father presented clear and convincing evidence, 2023, even after Father through expert testimony, that the prior decision was procured by perjured testimony from Mother."8 The Pennsylvania of Appellate Procedure states, "Except as otherwise prescribed lvania Rules of prescrihed of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed by this rule, the notice of days after the entry of within 30 of the order from which the appeal is taken." Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

In the current matter, the time to appeal Father's first issue has substantially passed the order is almost two years old. Additionally, Father required deadline as Judge Stambaugh's order previously filed a timely Notice of of Appeal regarding the issue of of Judge Stambaugh's December of Pennsylvania issued an Order stating Father's 29, 2023, Order. The Superior Court of Father's failed to

II York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 preserve any issues and/or contained substantial defects preserve any defects in his his brief brief and thus dismissed his his appeat. Thus. Father appeal."9 Thus, had an opportunity to have Judge Stambaugh's Final Father had Final Order for Custody reviewed. hut reviewed, but failed to properly properly preserve and/or meaningfullyy argue his issues.

Therefore. for the above reasons, Therefore, reasons. the the Court Court did did not err by failing prior ling to vacate the prior custody order entered on custody order 29, 2023. on December 29, 2023.

Issue 2 Issue Next, Father Father complains erred and ins that the Court erred and abused its discretion by excluding from evidence Mother's evidence Mother's criminal convictions spanning from 2014 2014 through 2025, 2025, including including guilty pleas domestic violence and conduct involving domestic conduct against Father, which he claims claims was directly directly relevant relevant to the custody 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)(2) custody determination under 23 5329(a)." 5328(a)02) and 5329(a).

First, Court did not exclude First, the Court exclude testimony regarding the the convictions, convictions. rather the record will reflect flect that Father testified substance of tied regarding the substance of many of of the criminal matters. The the custody trial that occurred in Court notes that Mother's criminal matters predated the in 2023, were considered by previously considered and would by the Court, and would have limited relevance to to the current current modification. Moreover, the Court considered these matters as part of analysis set of the factor analysis forth at the conclusion of of trial. trial. Specifically, during its custody faetor analysis, the Court custody factor specifically referenced Mother's criminal convictions, including including guilty pleas involving domestic involving domestic The included the following violence. The 2.2 violent llowing testimony, "Factor 2.2 violent or assaultive behavior behavior committed by by a party, Father multiple assaults by Mother Father reports multiple Mother throughout the years including including

9See Superior Court See Superior Count of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Order Order for for 148 MDA MDA 2024, 2024, filed filed on on June June 6, 2024.

2024.

IO See Appellant's IO See Concise Statement Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of of Errors of on on Appeal, Pages 1,2, I , ~ 2.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 prior to prior to the last custody trial head injuries in 2015, throwing knives in approximately 2022, 2022. and harassments in 2021 and 2023."!11 The Court properly declined to allow Father to read in to the record hearsay statements wrillen testify.' and written or police reports authored by a police officer, who was not present to testify, Father's exhibits were not admitted into specifically addresses, in Issue 6, its reasons as to why Father's evidence, because at no point during the trial were any of his documents properly introduced, authenticated, or admitted.'> Issue 33 Issue Father complains that the Court erred and abused its discretion by denying Father's subpoena to York County Children and Youth Services, which sought release ofr an investigative child, A.E.M.' report confirming that Mother assaulted the minor child, information sought by Father on November 29, 2023, which was This is the exact same infom1ation denied by Order dated December 7, 2023 (citing 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$ 6340(a) and 55 Pa. Code§ Code $ 3490.91(a)).

3490.9l(a)).

Therefore, the Court did not error or abuse its discretion ion by denying Father's subpoena to of an investigative report York County Children and Youth Services, which sought release of denied by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. previously denjed

I II Id. 280. at 280.

Id. at 12/.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Issue 44 Issue In his fourth issue, Father In Court erred by Father complains that the Court denying Father" by denying to Father'ss request to of Mother's medical records, despite having previously ordered Father to compell the production of produce his own medical records.' trial, Father attempted to submit into evidence a report by Julia F.

During the custody trial.

MD (hereinafter ""Dr. Arpino'") Arpino, MD visit and Mother's hospital visit Arpino") regarding Mother's to subpoena and to to her to subpoena her testify.' testify. 16 Mother's report obtained Mother's Father obtained manner Father to manner as to heard testimony as first heard Court first The Court The report regarding her discharge from July 13, 2024. 17 Father 13,2024.' came in possession of Father stated that he came of the report on August 24, his laptop because 2024, through his 24, 2024, in October Mother, in because Mother, October 202 2021, her accessed her l , personally accessed laptop.' WellSpan portal on his laptop. Wel~Span portal information Mother testified she did not put her Well formation into Father's laptop because she does not know her password and login information." formation. 19 Finally, Mother she never gave Father consent to access her WellSpan Mother testified that she Span portal and the formation contained therein.20 medical information Then, the WellSpans the Court heard argument regarding WellSpan 's motion to quash Father's of Dr. Arpino.' WellSpan subpoena of WellsSpan argued that Father's s ubpoena improperly sought to compel expert witness testimony, testimony disclosing infom,ation HIPPA, and information protected under HIPPA, physician-patient privilege.' testimony that would violate the physician-patient 22

I5 See Appellant's 15 Statement oof Errors Concise Statement Appellant's Concise of on Errors Complained of on Appeal, Pages 1-2,ii4.

Pages 1-2, 4.

I6N.T. 7/ 16N.T. 7/1825 at 6-7. l8/25 at6-7.

I7Id.

Id. at Id. at 11- lI88ld.at 1H-12 12.

I9Id.

Motion to 's Motion York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

The Court. based The Court, and argument from the testimony and based upon the counsel and from counsel Father, granted and Father, the granted the motion serious had serious also had Court also The Court Wel)Span. The for WellSpan. counsel for stated by counsel basis stated the legal basis to quash for the motion to concerns Father's like to Father's with regard to concerns with likely access to unlawful access ly unlawful Mother's protected to Mother's medical protected medical information.' information. 23

Therefore. Court ddid the Court Therefore. the err in not err id not in denying Father'ss request denying Father" compel the to compel rcquest to the production of production of Mother's records. medical records.

Mother's medical Issue 55 Issue Next discretion by its discretion abused its and abused erred and Court erred the Court elaims the Father claims Next, Father to order refusing to by refusing risk order aa risk assessment 23 Pa.C.S. under 23 Mother under of Mother assessment of Pa.C.$. §$ 5329.1.

5329.1.'24

It seems It is cciting Fatber is that Father Court that the Court to the seems to law for incorrect law iting incorrect issue because this issue for this Section because Section 5329.1 does and does services and protective services with protective involvement with and involvement abuse and child abuse of child consideration of address consideration 5329.1 address not address physical not address medical examination or medical physical or of aa person. examination of 23 Pa. person. 23 CS. §$ 5329.1.

Pa. C.S. Prior to 5329.1. Prior trial. to trial, Father Assessment.Physical Risk Assessment. to undergo aa Risk Mother to order Mother to order Court to the Court petitioned the Father petitioned mental and mental Physical and examinations governed by are governed examinations are Pennsylvania Rules the Pennsylvania by the of Civil Rules of Procedure which Civil Procedure states: which states: The in and fully participate in to and submit to to submit and/or any party to child(ren) and/or the child(ren) order the court may order The court an evaluation by an evaluation an appropriate expert or by an The order, or experts. The which shall order, which shall be be substantially in the fonn in the set forth form set Rule 19 in Rule forth in 1915.18, may be 15.18. may be made made upon the motion, upon own motion, court's own the court's the the person to the notice to reasonable notice with reasonable party with of aa party motion of the motion be examined, to be person to examined, or by or by agreement of agreement the parties. of the

Pa.R.C.P. No. I1915.8(a) 915.8(a)(emphasis added).

Once Mother's pertinent again, Mother's Once again, the custody trial convictions predated the pertinent convictions held before trial held before Judge Order for Custody entered November 20, 2024, Stambaugh in 2023. Moreover, the Interim Order ' '

23 N.T. 7/ N.T. 7/1825 at 21.

18/25at2I.

2, 5.

20, 2025. filed May 20, Assessment filed Risk Assessment Petition for Risk Father's Petition See Father's York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 directed to cooperate in the parties to directed the in obtaining "psychological evaluations, home "psychological evaluations, studies, and home studies, other and other investigations, which investigations. which shall fifteen ((15) within fifteen be requested within shall be days of 15) days this Order. of this date of the date of the If such Order. lf such services waived have waived to have deemed to is deemed party is the party time period, the that time within that not requested by aa party within are not services are the study and study evaluation and any evaluation of any costs of the costs shall pay the Each party shall services. Each such services. obtain such to obtain the right to which she requests." or she he or which he 11/24/20.

Order, 11/24/20. requests." Order, Thus, own hiss own at hi evaluation at an evaluation such an to complete such Mother to have compelled Mother could have Father could Thus, Father cost. failed to He failed cost. He do so, to do and his so, and untimely Petition his untimely for Risk Petition for Assessment filed Risk Assessment May 20, filed May 2025. was 20, 2025, was properly denied order. interim order. the interim in the forth in set fo as set waived as was waived such aa request was as such denied as Therefore, risk order aa risk to order refusing to discretion by refusing its discretion abuse its or abuse err or not err did not Court did the Court Therefore, the assessment Mother. for Mother. assessment for Issue 6 Issue In refusing rights by re due process rights his due violated his Court vio the Court complains the Father complains issue, Father sixth issue, his sixth In his to record." the trial record. into the exhibits into his exhibits admit his to admit 26

Thro been have been not have or may not that may or to things that testified to Father testified trial,, Father custody trial the custody Throughout the included to properly failed to He failed documents. He unauthenticated documents. and unauthenticated unidentified and of unidentified his binder of in his included in present, At exhibit.t. At trial exhibi as aa trial documents as those documents of those of any of admission of request admission and/or request authenticate and/or present, authenticate the entered be entered to be documents to unsubstantiated documents of uns binder of his binder expected his Father expected trial. Father of trial, conclusion of the conclusio into other proper or other Evidence or of Evidence Rules of the Rules for the regard for any regard without an carte blanche, without record carte the record into the courtroom about something because you testify about "Just because Father, "Just to Father, explained to Court explained The Court courtroom procedure. The something in general does not mean that you referenced an exhibit for admission and just because you you testify testi something doesn' about something fy about make documents doesn'tt make supporting itit automatically admissible. documents supporting are admissible. You are

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 identify the document, show it to counsel, and then present what is in the required to identify document.' document." 27 Thus. Father's Thus, Father's exhibits were not properly introduced into evidence and so they Father chose to proceed to trial self-represented without the assistance of were not admitted." of counsel; counsel, and it is clear that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as counsel; of knowledge of Father should not be afforded any leeway for his lack of of legal process or procedure.

Therefore, the Court did not err or abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Father's of unidentified and unauthenticated documents into the trial record. binder of Issues 7 and 9 These issues are closely related and thus the Court will address them together. Father of custody per complains that the Court abused its discretion by granting Father only 44 days of be in the best year, despite unrebutted expert testimony establishing that shared custody would be interest of child and that prior restrictions were based on false testimony. 29Additionally. of the child Additionally, Father complains the Court committed reversible error by failing to address or make finding on custody factors required under 23 Pa.C.S. Section the 16 Section 5328(a). and the tbe absence of of such 18. 2025, custody order legally deficient." findings renders the July 18, form of Pennsylvania law requires that, "[i]n ordering any fo of custody, the court shall of the child by considering all relevant factors[.)." determine the best interest of factors[.]. Moreover, "a Moreover. "a court may award any of 'court of seven delineated 'types of custody if types of if it is in the best interest of of the considering the factors set forth in [S]ection 5328 (relating to factors to consider child' after 'considering

27N.T. a1 277-78.

N.T. 7/18/25 at

/d at 278.

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 custody)[.]" Graves when awarding custody)[.]"' Graves, 265 A.3d 688, • Graves, Graves v. 688. 694 (Pa. Super. 2021 2021 )(emphasis added).The trial court articulate the Custody Act requires only that the trial "The Custody the reasons for its custody decision in open court or in a written opinion or order taking into consideration the enumerated factors." Id. the • M.L.G., Id. at 700 (citing M.J.M. v. ML.G., 63 A.3d 331. 336 (Pa. Super. I , 336 2013) (citations 2013) [T[here is no required amount of (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). "IT)here of detail for the trial court's explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the based on those considerations." Id. the custody decision is based Id. In custody matters, In matters. the controlling question and paramount concern is is the best interests of of child. and all other considerations are deemed subordinate lo the child, to the child's physical, physical, intellectual. intellectual, See McMillen moral, and spiritual well-being. See McMillen v. • McMillen, Me Millen. 602 A.2d 845, 847 (Pa. 1992). Issues of credibility of of the evidence, absent an abuse of credibility and weight of of discretion, are to be decided by the See N. trial court. See NH.M. • P. H. M v. P.UT, U. T, 947 A.2d I1268, Super, 2008). (Pa. Super. 268, 1272 (Pa. of Pursuant to Section 5328(a) (Factors to consider when awarding custody) of Pennsylvania's Child Custody Act: In ordering any fonn In form of of custody, the court shall dete1mine determine the best interest of of the childld by factors. giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors considering all relevant factors, specified under paragraphs (1),(2),(2.1) ), (2), (2. I) and (2.2) which affect the safety of the child, of the including the following: (I) likely to ensure the safety of (I) Which party is more likely of the child. (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of of the party's party's include past or current protection from abuse or sexual household, which may include violence protection orders where there has been a finding of of abuse. (2.1) (2.1) The information infonnation set forth in in section 5329.1 (a) (a) (relating to consideration of of child abuse and involvement with protective services). (2.2) Violent or assaultive behavior committed by a party. (2.3) Which pruty frequent ru1d party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing child and another party if contact between the child if contact is consistent with the safety of the child. needs of performed by (3) The parental duties perfonned hy each pruty party on behalf of the child. behalf of (4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life life and community life, except if changes are necessary to protect the safety of of the child York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 or a party. (5) The availability of of extended family. (6) The child's ld's sibling relationships. (7) The well-reasoned preference of of the child, child. based on the child's developmental stage, maturity and judgment. (8) The attempts of of a party to tum turn the chi cbild ld against the other party, except in cases of abuse where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the of of the safety of the child. A party's reasonable concerns for the safety of of the child ld and the party's reasonable efforts to protect the child shall not be considered attempts to turn the reasonable child's deficient or negative relationship with a child against the other party. A chjJd's party shall be presumed to be shall not be be caused by thethe other party. (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. (I 0) Which (10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional. physical. emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of of the child. (11) The proximity of (11) of the residences ofof the parties. (12) 12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements. (13) The level of of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child ld or self from abuse by another party is not evidence of of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party. (14) 14) The history of of drug or alcohol abuse ahuse of of a party or member of of a party's household. (I5) The mental and physical condition of (15) of a party or member of of a party's household. (16) 16) Any other relevant factor.

PAC.S.A. §5328(a).

23 Pa.C.S.A. $5328(a).

court must utilize those factors to detem1ine A trial court determine what type of of physical and legal of those factors outlined above, the court may consider custody to award. After consideration of which form of Pa.CS, §$ 5323 to award the parties, if of custody pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. if any. It is within within the courts purview as the finder of trial court' of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical M..J.M.. 63 A.3d at 339. in each particular case. See M.J.M.

factors (a total of The trial court clearly went through the custody factors of 16 were in effect at the of trial) at the conclusion time of conclusion of of the trial and stated its findings on the record in the presence of of

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 the parties and counsel.'' The Court also incorporated by reference the prior custody trial held by Judge Stambaugh, as well as Judge Stambaugh's findings of it was made clear to of fact, given that it of that custody order, not a "second bite at the apple" to the parties that this was a modification of relitigate evidence previously introduced during a full blown custody trial held a little over a year half prior (December 2023).' year and a half it appropriate to grant Father'ss request to Based upon its factor analysis, the Court found it lift his supervision would exercise supervision requirements, such that he would of the se partial physical custody of children on alternating weekende.' alternating weekends. credible of The Court found credible the testimony of his experts that

Father "completed the evaluations that were directed by Judge Stambaugh sufficiently to indicate that [he] does not pose an emotional or psychological risk of han11 sk of harm."," which was bolstered bolstered by the of the children to resume preference of resume a custodial relationship with him.' time of Notably, at the time of the trial and for two years prior, Father had exercised very little supervised visitation with the children were interviewed and children, given the associated cost.35 However, all three children expressed a desire to return to having regular visits with their Father, and all confirmed that they safe with felt safe with him. him."36 commit a reversible error by denying Therefore, the Court did not abuse its discretion or commit Mother'ss modification petition and maintainfog of granting maintaining status quo, with the exception of Fatherss request to lift Father' lift supervised visitation.

311 N.T. 7/18/25 279-84.

18/25 at 279-84.

1. at Id. at 292.

262-64.

36 Id. 285-86. At the time of of trial, the children 14.

L3, and 14. ldren were aged 12, 13, York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Issue 8 Father claims, in his eighth issue, that the Court erred by allowing Mother'ss counsel, misleading statements without Attorney Holt, to repeatedly submit false declarations and misleading consequence.' objection or consequence. in I, it As discussed in Issue 1, it is clear that Father was and remains of the parties' initial custody trial. 38 Absent specific unhappy with the outcome of fic reference to statements made, objections lodged, or rulings thereupon claimed to be in error, the Court does not believe any further discussion is warranted regarding this issue.

Conclusion Based upon the foregoing reasons, thiss Court submits that it it did not eJT err or abuse its discretion.

TED: September 16, 2025 DATED: ·TAS, JUDGE

154-55.

OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY3-NOTICE GIVEN 9-17-25 Of York Cou Of Yori< County nty

Diane M. Platts Prothonotary Y.ork County Courthouse York Billie Jo ~ones Billie Bones 45 North George Street Prothonotary Deputy Prothonotary York, Pennsylvania 17401 Gregory E. Gettle Telephone (717) 771-9611 -9611 Solicitor

NOTICE FORM Notice Given to: Crag 3 Moss C r()., Moss of recipient) (Name of

(Name of recipient) (Name of of recipient) (Name of

Via DELIVERY HAND DELIVE. of communication) (Method of

Case# & Description 1260) 2015-FC335-03 On Sp+ l17#%,2025 s~p+- 'lfh I ioi-s (Date)

DG 1)&JJ (Clcrk initials) (Clerk ,•t 3-NOTICE GIVEN 9-17-25 Garibay-Navarro. Day_ Garibay-Navarro, From: Dayanna a nna 'l'I Prothonotary Email Account count - Sent: 9.05 /\M Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:0) AM To: To: [email protected] 1993@conco rdsend.com Subject: 2015- 03 2015-FC-0003355-03 Attachments: 2025-09-17 (4).pf (4).pdf

21 PAGES FARLEY G HOLT ESQ of Entry of Notice of Order accordance with PAR. of Order·in R. C. P. 236. . ;

If you have a question forthe ff call 717-771-9611. the Prothonotary's Office, call 771-96 11. Thank you.

not reply to this e-mail; this inbox is not Please do not not monitored.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of of the intended and may recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged intorrnation. Any confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, review, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not disclosure, or not the intended intended recipient,t, please contact contact the sender at at number listed the phone number listed above and and destroy destroy all copies of of the original al message. essage.

A

J