J.L.S. v. R.P.S., Jr.

J-A29045-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

J.L.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : R.P.S., JR., : : Appellant : No. 816 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order entered May 4, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, Civil Division, No(s): 2011-1474-Civil

BEFORE: DUBOW, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2016

R.P.S., Jr. (“Father”), appeals from the May 4, 2016 Custody Order that denied Father’s request for shared custody, which was entered following Father’s Petition for Modification of the December 5, 2012 Custody Order that granted J.L.S. (“Mother”) primary physical custody of their daughters, F., born in June 2003, and G., born in June 2002 (collectively, “Children”). We affirm.

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the underlying facts, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 2-25.

Relevantly, Father and Mother were married in 2002, after living together for an unspecified period of time. Mother filed a Complaint in Divorce in September 2011, which included a claim for temporary physical custody of Children, pending the final hearing. At a Conciliation Conference

J-A29045-16

in December 2011, Father and Mother agreed to a temporary physical custody arrangement. On December 5, 2011, the trial court entered a Custody Order, granting Mother and Father shared legal custody, and granting Mother primary physical custody of Children. On October 20, 2014, Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody, seeking “to expand his custodial time.” On May 4, 2016, the trial court entered a Custody Order granting Mother and Father shared legal custody, and granting Mother primary physical custody of Children. The Custody Order denied Father’s request for shared physical custody of Children, and modified portions of the December 5, 2012 Custody Order. Relevant to this appeal, the May 4, 2016 Custody Order provides that Father’s partial physical custody of F. may begin when F.’s individual therapist indicates that F. is ready.

Father filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement.¹

On appeal, Father raises the following questions for our review:

I. Did the trial court err in finding that the best interest[s] of [Children] was for Father to have less custodial time than he had in the previous Order?

1 We note that although Father’s Concise Statement identifies six issues for appeal, the Questions Presented section of his brief identifies only three issues, and the wording of those issues differs from the wording used in the Concise Statement. In the Summary of the Argument section of his brief, Father identifies all six issues, and indicates that the six issues “can be consolidated into three areas of error on behalf of the trial court.” Father’s Brief at 4. Because the Argument section of his brief includes a discussion of all six issues identified in his Concise Statement, we will consider Father’s claims on appeal.

-2-

J-A29045-16

II. Did the trial court err in applying the sixteen factors set forth in [section] 5328 of the [Child Custody Act (“Act”)2]?

III. Did the trial court err in rendering decisions not supported by the weight of the evidence and findings of record?

Father’s Brief at 2. We will address Father’s issues together.

We review a trial court’s determination in a custody case for an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the evidence. We defer to the trial [court] regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence. The trial [court]’s deductions or inferences from its factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may reject the trial court’s conclusions only if they involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings.

C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506-07 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Additionally,

[t]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.

Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

Father claims that the trial court erred in finding that it is in the best interests of Children for Father to have less custodial time. Father’s Brief at 5. Father argues that the trial court erred in applying the sixteen factors set forth in section 5328 of the Act. Id. at 6. Specifically, Father challenges the

2 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321 et seq.

-3-

J-A29045-16

trial court’s findings under subsections (4), (6), (7), (10), (14) and (16). Id.

In regard to subsection (4), Father asserts that the trial court failed to consider the stability that F. had since 2014, under the terms of the prior Custody Order. Id. Father also argues that the trial court failed to explain how the requirement that F.’s therapist indicate when she is ready to continue with the custody arrangement will promote continuity or stability. Id. at 6-7.

In regard to subsection (6), Father claims that the trial court “failed to consider the testimony of the court evaluator, and the parties’ testimony that the individual therapist of [F.] recommended that [F.] be gradually eased into spending more time with Father….” Id. at 8. Father contends that, therefore, the trial court’s decision is against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 9.

In regard to subsection (7), Father argues that the trial court’s determination that F. “is not mature enough to make that decision” (regarding her preference to live with Father half of the time) is against the weight of the evidence because F.’s therapist and the court evaluator concluded that F. could be eased into the shared custody arrangement. Id.

In regard to subsection (9), Father asserts that there is no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that this factor weighs in favor of Mother

-4-

J-A29045-16

because “[t]here appears to be cadre of young adults at Father’s house who like to party while [] Children are around.” Id.

In regard to subsection (10), Father argues that the trial court’s finding that Mother is more likely to “attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, education and special needs” of Children is against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 10. Father states that he testified during the two-day trial that he is not opposed to counseling for Children or himself. Id. at 10-11.

In regard to subsection (14), Father claims that the trial court’s finding is against the weight of the evidence, as the trial court found that Father has an alcohol problem based solely on Mother’s testimony. Id. at 11. Additionally, Father asserts that G. was concerned about alcohol use by someone else in Father’s household, rather than by Father. Id. at 12.

In regard to subsection (16), Father contends that the trial court ignored the court evaluator’s recommendations, and provided no reason for doing so on the record. Id.

In any custody case decided under the Act, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328, 5338; see also E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 79 (Pa. Super. 2011). Section 5328(a) provides as follows:

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all

-5-

J-A29045-16

relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including the following:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services).

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.

(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.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, education and special needs of the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

-6-

J-A29045-16

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328; see also C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 509-10.

“All of the factors listed in section 5328(a) are required to be considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Moreover, section 5323(d) mandates that, when the trial court awards custody, it “shall delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a written opinion or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). The trial court may not merely rely upon conclusory assertions regarding its consideration of the section 5328(a) factors in entering an order affecting custody. M.E.V. v. F.P.W., 100 A.3d 670, 681 (Pa. Super. 2014). However, “[i]n expressing the reasons for its decision, there is no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.”

-7-

J-A29045-16

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

In its Opinion, the trial court undertook an analysis of the section 5328(a) factors, and concluded that “it is in Children’s best interests to live primarily with Mother.” See Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/16, at 25-33. Father’s arguments would require this Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence in Father’s favor. However, “with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge[,] who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand.” E.D., 33 A.3d at 76; see also C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 506 (stating that “[w]e defer to the trial [court] regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence.”). Although Father is not satisfied with the weight that the trial court afforded to many of the statutory factors in rendering its custody decision, our review of the record reveal that the trial court’s findings of fact are thoroughly supported by the record. See C.A.J., 136 A.3d at 506 (stating that this Court cannot reweigh the evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations so long as there is evidence to support the findings). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we defer to its custody decision. See id.

Order affirmed.

-8-

J-A29045-16

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/19/2016

-9-

Circulated 11/30/2016 04:39 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

J-L.S-, Plaintiff

R-P. S-, v.

Defendant No. 2011-1474-CIVIL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

c..-,

-: .: . . I - _-.. . . . ''.; _-:: .:

~~s- ij. /c~:mfll de dt~A_6~. tho D. Record /("

· Brenda C. George,;:,,;:::::::::: Prolhonolary and Clerk of Courts i-.rmstrong County, Pennsylvania

MY COMM. EXPIRES iST MON. JAN. 2020

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ~.RMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA J L. S--- Plaintiff

v. No. 2011-1474-CIVIL

Defendant

MEMORANDUM

PANCHIK, J.

Before the Court for disposition is defendant R-P. S-'s ("Father's") October 20, 2014 petition for modification of the December 5, 2012 custody order granting ~ L. S- ("Mother") p.r.i.ma ry physical custody of F , born June 231 2003r and G

r born June 6, 2002, (collectively the "Children").

Trial began July 20, 2015 with Father's testimony. The

Court then suggested that the parties and Children be evaluated

by a psychologist and a custody report (the "report") prepared

for the Court. The Court continued the trial 120 days for that

purpose. Custody evaluator Martin Meyer, Ph.D., then submitted

a report to the Court. The custody trial resumed and was

completed March 18, 2016. The matter is now ripe for decision.

For the reasons that follow, we will grant Mother primary

physical custody of the Children, and Father partial physical

custody, in accordance with the accompanying order.

s v. s ..... No. 2011-1411-Civil

FACTS

After reviewing the record, the Court makes the

following findings of fact. -~.. s- Mother and Father lived together for an unspecified

period of time prior to marriage. They married in 2002, separated in 2011 and were divorced in 2013.

Father and Mother live a three-to-five minute drive from one other.

Father, 43, live.s with his paramour, W- S and W-' s two adult children, DIIII, 20, and AIII 19. 1 They have lived together in a house in Dayton, Armstrong County for approximately three years. The house has seven bedrooms. Sveryone has his own room.

Father has two children from a previous relationship: C-, 23, and~' 19. They do not live with him.

Father is a high school graduate. He received special education for reading and learning problems from first through ninth grades. Father noted that the Children also have learning problems. Father ~erved in the U.S. Marine Corps and received an honorable discharge.

s v.s••• "o. 2011-1174-Civii

Father's mother worked as a secretary and his father was a butcher.

Father works as a foreman at Rosebud Mining Company. He has worked there for 11 years. Father works 4 a.m. to 2 p.m. or 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Friday. On occasion, Father

also works Saturday. When he works the morning shift, he gets

up at 3 a.m. and returns home at 3 p.m. For the later shift,

Father leaves the house at noon and gets home at midnight.

Father can be reached in the mine where he works by landline

telephone.

If Father is granted more time with the Children

during the week, he will see them for forty-five minutes when he

works the afternoon shift. When Father works the daylight

shift, he will see the girls after they come home from school.

At the time he testified, Father had partial custody

of the Children on Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. and every

other weekend from 4 p.m. Friday to 8 p.m Sunday. Father

testified that previously, Mother was more flexible about giving

Father more time than the custody order called for. Father

would text Mother and ask for more time with the Children and

Mother would permit it. Father was getting the Children every

weekend. That stopped the day that Father asked Mother for

fifty/fifty custody. Mother said no, she did not think that was

s v. s••• No. 2011-1414-Civil

a good idea. Father still wishes to have at least F- fifty percent of the time.

Exchanges take place with Father picking up and dropping off the Children. Meyer, at 18. Father does not interact with Mother. Father told Meyer in mid-2015 that if a problem arose, it was solved via text messages or by meeting in

person. Meyers Report, at 18. Father said there was a "mild

level of hostility between he and [Mother]" and said this

included a strong expression of dislike. Father admitted that

he had talked to the Children regarding the custody situation.

FIIII and G- both attend West Shamokin High School.

G'IIII is in St11 grade and EIIII is in 7th grade. Father testified

either W- that if he is granted custody of the Children during the week,

bus in the morning. or Paternal Grandmother will put thern on the school

Father described Mother as a good parent and said that

their marital problems began when Mother started school. Father

said he was depressed during their relationship and argued with

Mother. Meyer Report, at 15. Father stated that Mother did not

attempt to change. The parties were arguing. Mother wanted a

divorce; Father did not. Mother then called 911. and said Father

had hit her. Mother obtained a PFA against him. Id.

s v, s••• Ho. 2011-1474-Civil

Father said he had no concerns regarding Mother's parenting abilities and there are no disagreements between them regarding education, religion, athletic/recreational experiences and special interests. Father believes that ~would benefit from speech services and told Meyer that both Children need medication for focusing. Meyer Report, at 17.

Father said he believed that Mother wo~ld say Father

is inadequate or incompetent to care for the Children and that

Father uses alcohol excessively. Meyer Reportr at 15. Father

said Mother thinks he is not responsible. Id.

Father is a Christian. He feels that religion is an

important influence on the Children1s lives.

According to Father, EJIII and G- have a Jove/hate

relationship with each other "minute by minute.u Separating the

two is in their best interests. The Children need time apart

and time together, Father said. He wants what the Children

want. They should make their own decisions about where to live.

Father said that cJIII is better away _from GIIII- Paternal Grandmother. lives two or three hundred yards

away from Father's house, as do two siblings of Father. They

are available to help with the Children. W- works for

Paternal Grandmother at a care home located two or three hundred

yards away. £11111 and Giii both play softball and F .... is in

s v. s••• No. ~011-1414-Civil

the marching band. The Children also are involved in the 4-H Club. Father can get the Children to their activities by himself with the help of his family and Wendy.

The girls need adult supervision when they are at

home. Wendy watches them when Father is at work. The Children

get along "greatn with Wendy, according to Father.

The Children are in good physical health. However,

they have serious emotional problems.

Father testified that Giii will not come over to his

house because of an incident involving a babysitter. The

Pennsylvania State Police and Armstrong County's Children, Youth

and Family Services were called in to find out what had

happened.

After the incident, G91 began to have individual

therapy. Although joint counseling was recommended, Father

resisted participating in counseling with G- First, he did

not believe that the incident described by Giii actually

occurred. Secondly, he does not believe in counseling. "I

believe counseling is not the answer to anything,n Father

testified. ~r think counseling is useless sometimes.n He said

people just "have to work things out."

Father has had serious mental health problems himself.

He began to have depression in 2009 when he felt neglected by

s v• s••• !le. 2011-H71l-Civil

~other. Meyer Report, at 15. Father also suffered from anxiety in 2009, feeling jittery and having tachycardia. Father was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward in 2010 when be threatened to commit suicide. As a result, Father went to

individual therapy and took psych medication. Father stopped

taking medication after a short time. Father said that he did

had therapy for a year, although Mother said he only had therapy

for a short time. Father testified that be stopped because his

therapist and doctor said he no longer needed counseling or

medication. However, Father did not give this reason for

stopping to Meyer.

With respect to his alcohol intake, Father testified

that he drinks a case of beer per week, maybe a case every two

weeks. Father then testified that he only drinks two cases of

beer per month. Father denied drinking 15 beers a day. He said

he outgrew that "a long time ago." Father noted that he had no

arrests and no work missed because of drinking. At trial,

Father said he had passed a drug and alcohol test at work. The

test was taken July 14, 2015. See Exhibit 2. Father also had a

drug and alcohol evaluation done November 13, 2015 because of

Meyer's recommendation that Father do so. This evaluation, made

at The Open Door, stated that "[b)ased on the information you

provided during your assessment, it is the r ecomroendatLon of the

s 'I. s--- Ho. 2011-1474-Civil

treatment team at this time that you do not meet criteria for outpatient treatment." Ex. 1. The report further stated, "It is important for the Court and legal counselor or any other parties to note that the findings of The Open Door are highly dependent on the extent and veracity of the reports made by the individual. " Id. {emphasis added. )

Father does not believe that his drinking led to his

divorce from Mother.

According to Father, his paramour drinks only

occasionally. Father also s e i.d that "cmidoes not object to

drinking." Gtlll has contradicted that assertion.

Mother takes the Children to the doctor and dentist.

According to Father, Mother does not tell Father what happens at

those visits.

Father does not receive a schedule of the Children's

softball games. He said he only finds out there is a game when

he gets a text from Mother the day of the game. Father would

like Mother to keep him more informed.

Father believes that the camps the Children go to are

good for them. They help the Children to make new friends.

Father asserted that Mother screens Father's calls to

-c:he Children. Father said he used to text the girls every day

or every other day. However, Mother got the girls new cell

S Ho. v, 5---- 2Gll-1474~Civil

phones for Christmas of 2015. As a result, Father said, Mother can now read everyone's texts. Because the texts are no longer private, Father no longer texts the Children.

In the last year, G- has not come to Father's house

as often as FIIIII it face to face and via text.

or talk to him. has.

The However,

last time G- G- Father has tried to talk to GIIII abouf · will not text him

stayed overnight wa s Easter

2015, when she stayed from Saturday to Sunday. Things we nt;

quite well that weekend, according to Father.

If the Court grants Father equal physical custody of

the Children, he will introduce the Children to the expanded

time with him slowly. However, Father would not force GIIII ~o come to his house right away, since she is the one having

problems with him. Father said be would have FIIII come over

more right away, since that is what she wants.

Mother, 43, lives in a house in Dayton, Armstrong

18. Jllllf and Miii are children from Mother's previous

marriage. The house was the partys' marital residence. 'I'he

Children have not primarily resided anywhere else.

Mother has been a certified nurse practitioner since

20J2. She works in the emergency room of Armstrong County·

s Uo. v, s--- 2Dll-1474-C1vil

Memorial Hospital. Mother works three eight-hour shifts one week and four eight-hour shifts the next.

Mother and the Children are Presbyterian. Mother told Meyer that the religion is an important influence in the Children's lives.

J. 'l'-and Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather,

G-,

Mother is close to her parents. are dairy farmers on the M1IIII family farm.

Mother reported to Meyer that in 2010, Father held a

pistol to his head and she was concerned for him and as well as

for herself. Father signed himself into the psychiatric ward

and the parties separated for four months. Father received

medication and therapy, but became agitated when he stop taking

his medication. Mother told Meyer that Father was physically

intimidating to her and emotionally abusive during their

relationship. In the summer of 2011, Father shoved Mother and

kicked in a door. In 2011, Mother obtained a one-year

Protection from Abuse order against Father because of what she

termed his hostility, aggression, suicidal threats and physical

intimidation.

According to Mother, Father is an alcoholic. He has a

long history of daily alcohol abuse. Father has tried to quit

but faiJ.ed many times. He even attended AA in the past. Mother

s 'J, s--- no. ~011-1q11-civil

told Meyer that Father sometimes left her for months at a time on alcoholic binges. Mother has known Father to consume 12 beers in one or two hours. When Father drinks, he becomes hostile and angry.

Mother told Meyer that Father associates with people

with the same alcoholic behavior and has been known to become

iricreasingly hostile and aggressive with the Children when

drinking, especially when drunk or hungover. Father has also

left the Children in the care of questionable individuals.

According to Meyer, Mother has found Father and his

girlfriend texting disparaging comments about Mother to F-

and discussing custody matters with her.

Mother stated that she did not typically discuss or

disclose custody information with the Children unless she needed

to take them to something like a conciliation or hearing. It is

her belief that both Father and his girlfriend regularly discuss

custody matters with F-.

Mother said both girls have "experienced episodes of

not wanting to go to their dad's." Fiii has maintained the

schedule but GIIII has refused to go. The visitations have

interfered with the relationship between~ and he.r sister.

EIIII eventually reduced her visits, with Father admitting later

that it wa s because Fiii wanted to spend more time w i.th Mother.

s v. s--- uo , 2011-1<!74-Clvil

Meyer Report, at 11. Flllf uses visitation as a weapon to get her way and is not mature enough to decide where she should stay, Mother said.

Mother also told Meyer that she has "concerns that

[Father] lives in a cabin with his girlfriend and two of her

adult children, who also have partners [.) [Mother related,]

'[I]t is my understanding that they regularly engage in keg

parties and smoke pot.'n Id. Mother sa~d that the adult

children and their partners "regularly care for the girls." Id.

a1: 13.

Father subpoenaed FJIII for the first scheduled trial,

but not G- He also took FIIII to his attorney's office.

Father's different treatment of the Children resulted in

increased discord between Fml and ~

G~and Flllll!f have both been diagnosed with

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Father does not

believe this is a valid diagnosis. According to Mother, he has

refused to regularly give them their medication.

The Children have learning difficulties and they both

engage in lying behavior.

G- has been diagnosed with anxiety. She is

avoidant and has difficulty making friends. She made a

homicidal threat toward her teacher during the fif~h grade and

S uo . v, 5--- :?.Oll-1q7,1-C!1Til

was expelled for three days. Mother told Meyer about the following problems involving G-:

In December of 2011, the father had gone to a Christmas party and wanted to leave, at which time her brother and a cousin threw her down steps. E'ather had passed out drunk and "became belligerent" when asked to get up. In 2012, G & [ s anxiety increased and she became physically aggressive with her mother. Counseling was recommended but father refused for her to receive such. At one point in 2012, when suicidal and homicidal, [G f threatened to cut her mother's hair off and stab her in her sleep. She said if she was forced to go to her father's, she would kill him, and G- eventually stopped seeing him. * * * Other i~nts between 2012-2013 involve their father leaving the children with female babysitters who then had a party with ~eeoro, hid~ t··hechildren~ s plhofnes. anhd jumped on ch z: am. I was again e t w i.t; a teenager w o at a filmed G and threatened to publish pictures of her. ~ threatened to stab them. In the fall of 20121 ~was in possession 0£ G in a vehicle while G g was agitated, and she threatened to jump from the car because she did not want to go to her father's home.

Meyer Report, at 5.

and homicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior when G ... was

with him. He called Gtl•• s behavior "typical temper t.a n t r urns . 11

Mother regularly told Father about G... 's problems, but in 2012

Father "made it clear it was not his problem and be wanted

s , s--• t , No. 2011-1174-CLvil

nothing to do with it," Mother testified.2 Mother thought~ needed counseling, but Father was reluctant to agree. He denied that G-had a problem or needed treatment. Father finalJ.y consented to G- seeing a therapist at the end of November 2012. Father took eight weeks to sign the necessary paperwork and the signing had to be accomplished through the parties'

attorneys.

It also took nearly two months to get Father's consen~

for FIIIII to get counseling, Mother said. Father has aJ.so

opposed counseling for himself. He does no~ feel that

counseling is useful. He has called it "hogwash.11

sessions with her for a while

before getting her own therapist. Father would not consent

until he was assured that Mother was not a part of the

coun s e Li n q .

counseling together. It was recommended that Fathe:r and

However, only after Meyer issued his G- do some

a babysitter G- reported an incident at Father's house involving

and the babysitter's boyfriend. ~ said they

videotaped her dancing with a bear. They then forced her to

2Father denied ever saying this.

s v. s--- uo , 2011-H7q-C.lVl.l

dance in a sexual manner with a baseball bat. Father sided with the babysitter. C11111exhibited increasing anxiety and made threats to hurt herself and others.

c9III was prescribed Selexa. for anxiety as well as medication for her ADHD. At G9III' s request, she was weaned off

the medication in 2015 because she was doing so well.

wanted to stop her counseling, but Mother and Gllll's therapist

recommended against it.

G.. has made progress in counseling. Mother

reported that at the time of trial, G- s anxiety was

"minimal" and she had not made any threats to hurt herself or

a n yorre else.

According

declined significantly to Mother,

in 2014. G-' c;9II s visi t s to Fa t h e r ' s house

would get anxious on some

visits and "we'd let her come home early. Sometimes I:1!11111 would

stay with Father." This occurred 15 to 20 times. ~ s

visits to Father were practically nonexistent in 2015. G..

went over there once.

In early 2015, Melissa McKee, the girls' therapist,

recommended that ~begin to see Father "gradually."

However, Mother has not t a ke n F- to Father's hou.s e more

because "the

setup," Mother said. behavior

G- of F- is a problem

s "relat.ionship with F- 15 in the current

gets

s Uo. v, s--- 2011-1,74-Civil

worse the mo z e they are s epa ret ed." Wben - initially comes back from Father's house, "all her bad behaviors and emotions are at their peak," according to Mother. "Then she calms down and eventually is a nicer person." McKee and Meyer are recommending a gradual .increase in time with Father "whenever

the girls can consistently improve in their individual behavior

and in their relationship," Mother said.

G-has not spent the night at Father's house in

2016. She will not go. Gmll says she does not like it out

there. "I speculate that she doesn't feel safe," Mother said.

"She shuts down when I try to discuss it." G .. is unable to

verbalize her feelings about the matter.

G- last visited Father's house on March 15, 2016

for four hours. Her behavior deteriorated. Her anxiety

spiraled and she had a panic attack. The Children were fighting

and Mother had to separate them for the night.

'l'he relationship between Giii and E9III is still a

serious problem. "It's beyond sibling rivalry,u Mother said.

"It's an adversarial relationship." Mother said ''[t]here isn't

a day they're not screaming and yelling at each other." They

G-" F- have come to blows.

has touched. "F- has developed a real

refuses to touch anything or anyone that G- dislike of

s v, s•-- uo. ~011-lq74-Civil

The hostility between the sisters is most noticeable when F-returns home from Father's house. G-s anxiety escalates and the two girls fight.

At the time of trial, each girl was having individual

therapy once a month. Therapist Melissa McKee sees G- and

F-together for the last half hour of the session.

In the .summer of 2015, Mother and F2ther did a trial

run of ~ going back and forth week on and week off. It was

an "utter failure,u Mother said. "It negatively affected the

feuding between the two girls." Mother noted that once the

vJeekabouts stopped in the fall, G-and f11111s relationship

"changed and got better." However, the r e La t Lon sh i p is "still

an issue. It' s not consistently good." F9111 is ta king

Concerta for ADHD. She actually requested it for herself for

school, Mother said. The medication has helped.

Mother said she finds it "very concerning to split

[up] the girls." Her concern is that separating the Children

more "will further exacerbate the [acrimonious) relationship

between the girls." Mother said the problems between G~ and

F.. pL1ts a strain on her entire familyr including her two

older stepchildren.

Mother said it is in the best interests of the

·children that there be no change in the amount of time that

s v. s ..... l1o. :!011-1474-Civil

Father has each child. ~There is even stress in the present schedule," Mother said. GIIII should not be forced to see Father at all in the present situation.

Meyer interviewed W .. S-, Father's paramour, and elicited the following information. S , age 41, graduated from high school with average grades. She attended business school and became certified as a medical assistant in

1994. Semanovich was previously married and has three children:

an 18-year-old daughter and two sons, ages 20 and 21. She and

F~ther have lived together more than two and a half years.

Semanovich has been employed at Back to Basics since 2013. She

denied any medical problems, physical limitations or mental or

emo~ional difficulties. She said she has no history of drug or

alcohol abuse and has no criminal history.

Meyer observed the Children separately and together at

Mother's house.

that she enjoys cooking.

culinary activities. Meyer, at 21. F- When the girls were together, G•••

aJ.so reported interest in told Meyer

Activities that the Children

do with Mother include cooking, going out to eat and playing

board games. Id. Fiii told Meyer that she does not like it when

someone touches her possessions, such as when G.. touches

them. Id. F9llsaid, "I freak out ... cry ... jump up and down." Id.

]8

s v, s--- No. 2011-1414-Civil

The Children said they had been grounded for fighting and had also lost phone and iPad privileges.

When Meyer saw G-alone, G-discussed a problem she had had at Father's house in which 1'111, S ,s daughter, yelled at her and would not let G-=al-:-.e her

Christmas presents back to Mother's house. Id. at 22. G ..

said it is unfair tbat they treat 7'111better and treat F ..

better than her. Id. She told Meyer she does not like

~'s children. G-said that Piii", , Father

a.nd .sometimes D-babysi t her. Questioned regarding a f:i.ght

that allegedly occurred at Father's house, GJIIIII stated that

- might have "accidentally" pushed her and that "he was

drinking alcohol.u Id. Asked about her interactions with

babysitters at Father's house, ~ said, "I prefer not to talk

about it." G9II said she may want to see Father a couple of

times a year, bu~ not on an extended vacation. Id.

Ln t e r v i.e we d independently, F.. t:.old Meyer she has an

adequate relationship with S-'s children. Flllil said

she is usually at Father's house in the afternoon. She hangs

out there with cousins or an uncle. Id. Occasionally,

S- watches her. EW111 is not aware why G- does not

w i s h to visit Father. Asked about her relationship ,·Ji th G ... ,

FIIII said, "G-pushes my buttons." Id. ~ said she would

Footnotes

[1] Mother contended that D- and A9 also have their paramours living with chem in the house.