J.L.S. v. R.P.S., Jr. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A29045-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 J.L.S. v. R.P.S., JR., Appellant : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 816 WDA 2016 Appeal from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 225. 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 S-, v. R-P. No. 2011-1474-CIVIL Defendant MEMORANDUM AND ORDER c..-, -: .: . . - . . ''.; . I _ .. - _-:: .: ij. /c~:mfll tho dt~A_6~.D. Record ~~s- /(" de · Brenda C. George,;:,,;:::::::::: Prolhonolary and Clerk of Courts i-.rmstrong County, Pennsylvania MY COMM. EXPIRES iST MON. JAN. 2020 IN THE COURT OF COMMON L. S--- J PLEAS OF ~.RMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 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, modification ~ of the December 5, 2012 custody order granting L. S- ("Mother") p.r.i.ma ry physical , born June 231 F custody of 2003r and G born June 6, 2002, (collectively r 2014 petition for 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 for the Court. purpose. and a custody report The Court continued Custody evaluator a report to the Court. completed March 18, the trial 120 days for that Martin Meyer, Ph.D., then submitted The custody trial 2016. (the "report") prepared resumed and was 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. -~.. sMother 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, and W-' s two adult live.s with his paramour, W- DIIII, children, 20, and AIII S 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. problems. Father noted that the Children also have learning Father ~erved in the U.S. Marine Corps and received an honorable discharge. 1 Mother contended that Dchem in the house. and A9 also have their paramours living with 2 s s••• v. "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. also works Saturday. On occasion, Father 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. weekend. Father was getting the Children every That stopped the day that Father asked Mother for fifty/fifty custody. Mother said no, she did not think that was 3 s s••• v. 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. interact with Mother. problem arose, it Meyer, at 18. Father does not Father told Meyer in mid-2015 that if a 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 G'IIII is and G- in St11 grade W- and both attend West Shamokin High School. EIIII is in 7th grade. Father testified that if he is granted custody of the Children during the week, either or Paternal Grandmother will put thern on the school bus in the morning. 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. divorce; not. Father did had hit her. Mother wanted a Mother then called 911. and said Mother obtained a PFA against him. Id. 4 Father s s••• v, 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 and special interests. experiences 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. important influence According relationship He feels that religion is an on the Children1s to Father, lives. EJIII and G- have a Jove/hate with each other "minute by minute.u Separating the two is in their best interests. The Children need time apart and time together, He wants what the Children want. Father said. 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 away from Father's house, as do two siblings of Father. are available to help with the Children. Paternal yards W- yards They works for Grandmother at a care home located two or three hundred away. £11111 and Giii both play softball and F .... is 5 i n s••• s v. No. ~011-1414-Civil the marching band. Club. The Children also are involved in the 4-H 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. Pennsylvania The State Police and Armstrong County's Children, Youth and Family Services were called in to find out what had happened. After the incident, therapy. Although G91 began to have individual joint counseling was recommended, Father resisted participating in counseling with G- not believe that the incident described by Giii occurred. actually Secondly, he does not believe in counseling. believe counseling testified. First, he did ~r "I is not the answer to anything,n Father 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 6 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. taking medication after a short time. Father stopped 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 outgrew that "a long time ago." He said 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. test was taken July 14, 2015. See Exhibit 2. The 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 7 is the r ecomroendat Lon 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. {emphasis added. ) " Id. Father does not believe that his drinking led to his divorce from Mother. According to Father, his paramour drinks only occasionally. drinking." Father also s e i.d that "cmidoes Gtlll not object to 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 8 S Ho. v, 5---- 2Gll-1474~Civil phones for Christmas of 2015. can now read everyone's texts. As a result, Father said, Mother Because the texts are no longer private, Father no longer texts the Children. has not come to Father's house In the last year, Gas often as FIIIII has. it face to face and via text. or talk to him. The G- Father has tried to talk to However, last time G- 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 marriage. Children and Miii are children from Mother's previous The house was the partys' marital residence. have not primarily resided anywhere else. Mother has been a certified nurse practitioner 20J2. 'I'he since She works in the emergency room of Armstrong County· 9 s Uo. s--- v, 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'- Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather, and G-, are dairy farmers on the M1IIII family farm. Mother is close to her parents. 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 and the parties separated medication into the psychiatric for four months. Father and therapy, but became agitated when his medication. intimidating Mother told Meyer that received he stop taking Father was physically to her and emotionally abusive relationship. ward during their In the summer of 2011, Father shoved Mother kicked in a door. and In 2011, Mother obtained a one-year Protection from Abuse order against termed his hostility, aggression, Father because of what suicidal threats she and physical intimidation. According long to Mother, Father history of daily alcohol abuse. but faiJ.ed many times. is an alcoholic. Father has tried to quit He even attended AA in the past. 10 He has a Mother s--- s 'J, 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. hostile When Father drinks, he becomes 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." schedule but GIIII Fiii has refused to go. The visitations have interfered with the relationship between~ EIIII eventually that it has maintained the and he.r sister. reduced her visits, with Father admitting later wa s because Fiii wanted to spend 11 more time w i.th Mother. s--- s v. uo , 2011-1<!74-Clvil Flllf uses visitation as a weapon to get Meyer Report, at 11. 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 '[I]t is my understanding [.) [Mother related,] 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 but not G- subpoenaed He also Father's different increased discord took FJIII for FIIII to the first scheduled trial, his attorney's office. treatment of the Children resulted in between G~and Fml and ~ Flllll!f have both been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. believe this is a valid diagnosis. refused to regularly Father does not According to Mother, he has give them their medication. The Children have learning difficulties and they both engage in lying behavior. Gavoidant homicidal has been diagnosed with anxiety. and has difficulty threat making friends. She is She made a toward her teacher during the fif~h 12 grade and S uo . 5--- v, :?.Oll-1q7,1-C!1Til was expelled for three days. following problems Mother told Meyer about the 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 Geventually 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 at z: am. I was again e t w i.t; a teenager w o 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. a Meyer Report, at 5. and homicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior when G ... with him. He called Gtl•• s behavior "typical temper t.a n t r urns . Mother regularly told Father about G... 's problems, Father 11 but in 2012 "made it clear it was not his problem and be wanted 13 was , 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. that G-had consented 2012. He denied a problem or needed treatment. Father finalJ.y to G- seeing a therapist at the end of November 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. opposed counseling for himself. counseling is useful. Father has aJ.so He does no~ feel that He has called it "hogwash.11 sessions with her for a while before getting her own therapist. Father would not consent G- until he was assured that Mother was not a part of the coun s e Li n q . It was recommended that Fathe:r and counseling together. Ga babysitter However, only after Meyer issued his reported an incident at Father's house involving and the babysitter's boyfriend. videotaped her dancing with a bear. 2Father do some denied ever saying this. ~ said they They then forced her to s s--- v. uo , 2011-H7q-C.lVl.l Father sided with dance in a sexual manner with a baseball bat. the babysitter. threats to C11111exhibited herself and hurt c9III was medication for her the medication increasing anxiety and made others. prescribed Selexa. for anxiety as well as ADHD. At G9III' s request, she was weaned off 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. reported that at the time of trial, G- Mother s anxiety was "minimal" and she had not made any threats to hurt herself or a n yorre G-' else. According to Mother, declined significantly in 2014. s visi t s to Fa t h e r ' s house c;9II would get anxious on some visits and "we'd let her come home early. stay with Father." Sometimes This occurred 15 to 20 times. I:1!11111 ~ would 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 However, because Mother "the has not behavior setup," Mother said. to see Father "gradually." t a ke n F- G- of F- to Father's is a problem in hou.s e more the current s "relat.ionship with F15 gets s Uo. s--- v, 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. and eventually is a nicer person." "Then she calms down 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. not spent the G-has 2016. there. She will not go. night at Father's house in Gmll says she does not like it out "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 Her behavior deteriorated. for four hours. spiraled and she had a panic attack. Her anxiety The Children were fighting and Mother had to separate them for the night. 'l'he relationship between Giii serious problem. and E9III is still a "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." G-" F- have come to blows. "F- has developed a real They dislike of refuses to touch anything or anyone that G- has touched. 16 s s•-- v, 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. F-together Therapist Melissa McKee sees G- and 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 "changed and It' an issue. got better." However, f11111s relationship the r e La t Lon sh i p is "still s not consistently good." She actually requested it Concerta for ADHD. school, Mother said. Mother [up] the girls." F9111 The medication is ta king for herself for has helped. said she finds it "very concerning to split Her concern is that separating the Children more "will further exacerbate the [acrimonious) relationship between the girls." F.. pL1ts Mother said the problems between G~ 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 17 and s v. s ..... l1o. :!011-1474-Civil Father has each child. ~There is even stress in the present GIIII schedule," Mother said. Father at all in the present should not be forced to see situation. Meyer interviewed W .. S-, and elicited the following information. Father's paramour, , S graduated from high school with average grades. age 41, 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. F- When the girls were together, G••• that she enjoys cooking. told Meyer aJ.so reported interest in culinary activities. Meyer, at 21. 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, them. Id. F9llsaid, "I such as when G.. touches freak out ... cry ... jump up and down." Id. ]8 s--- s v, 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, 1'111, she had had at Father's house in which daughter, yelled Christmas a problem G-discussed ,s S at her and would not let G-=al-:-.e her 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. ~'s She told Meyer she does not like children. a.nd .sometimes G-said D-babysi t that her. Piii", Questioned that allegedly occurred at Father's house, - might have "accidentally" drinking alcohol.u G9II about it." GJIIIII stated that "he was about her interactions said, "I prefer babysitters at Father's house, ~ Father regarding a f:i.ght pushed her and that Asked Id. , with not to talk 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, adequate relationship she is usually with at Father's F.. S-'s w i s h to visit FIIII said, Father. Asked about "G-pushes my buttons." 19 She has an said hangs Occasionally, not aware why Gher she Flllil house in the afternoon. EW111 is watches her. Meyer children. out there with cousins or an uncle. Id. S- t:.old does not relationship Id. ~ ,·Ji th G ... , said she would

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.