S.P. v. K.H. v. B.H.

J-A11006-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

S.P. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

:

v. :

:

:

K.H. : No. 1654 MDA 2024

v. :

:

:

B.H. :

Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):

2021-FC-001007-03

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: MAY 16, 2025

In this child custody action, S.P. (Mother), biological mother of A.P. (a

daughter born in December 2013) and R.H. (a son born in October 2017)

(collectively, Children), appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s October 22,

2024, order awarding, inter alia , 1) Mother primary physical custody and sole

legal custody of Children; 2) B.H., paternal grandfather (Grandfather), partial

physical custody of Children, as well as access to educational, therapeutic,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A11006-25

and medical information concerning Children; and 3) K.H. (Father)1 telephonic

and/or video contact with Children, consistent with the regulations and

protocols of the Department of Corrections. After careful consideration, we

affirm in part, and reverse in part.

The trial court summarized the underlying factual and procedural

history:

Mother and Father [] have been in custody proceedings that began

in Lebanon County[, Pennsylvania,] in 2018 related to …

Children[]. After Father was charged with sexual offenses

unrelated to Children, Mother petitioned a Lebanon County court

for modification of a January 23, 2019[,] custody order, which

[had] granted Mother and Father shared legal custody, Father

primary physical custody, and Mother partial physical custody.

Mother sought sole legal and sole physical custody of Children,

and[, on August 2, 2021,] Grandfather [] filed a petition to

intervene. [On August 10, 2021, Mother filed preliminary

objections to Grandfather’s petition to intervene, challenging,

inter alia, Grandfather’s standing.] Subsequently, Mother moved

successfully for transfer [of the case] to York County[,

Pennsylvania.]2 Father pleaded no contest to the [sexual

offenses]3 and[, on August 4, 2021,] was sentenced to [] four-

and-one-half to ten years of incarceration.

____________________________________________

1 We hereinafter refer to Father and Grandfather, collectively, as “Appellees.”

Appellees are biologically related to R.H., but not A.P.

2 On September 21, 2021, Lebanon County Judge Samuel A. Kline (Judge

Kline) transferred the parties’ custody case to York County. Order, 9/21/21,

at 1 (unpaginated). Judge Kline did not determine whether Grandfather had

standing to intervene. See id. (Judge Kline indicating that the parties’

numerous issues should be adjudicated in York County).

3 Father pleaded nolo contendere to statutory sexual assault, involuntary

deviate sexual intercourse of a child, aggravated indecent assault, corruption

of minors, sexual abuse of children, unlawful communication with a child, and

indecent assault. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121.1(b), 3123(b), 3125(a),

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2-

J-A11006-25

Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 1 (footnotes added).

Relevantly, in his petition to intervene, Grandfather only asserted legal

standing to seek custody of Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2),4

averring as follows: “[Grandfather’s] relationship with [Children] began with

the consent of … Father. The parents of [C]hildren have commenced a

proceeding for custody[,] and it is believed that [] Mother … does not agree

____________________________________________

6301(a)(1)(ii), 6312, 6318, 3126. Following Father’s nolo contendere pleas,

the parties’ custody matter proceeded to a risk of harm hearing, whereafter

Judge Kline “deem[ed Father] not [to be] a risk of harm [to Children,] and

authorize[d] proceeding on th[e] custody matter.” Order, 9/21/21, at 1

(unpaginated).

4 Section 5325(2) provides:

In addition to situations set forth in section 5324 (relating to

standing for any form of physical custody or legal custody),

grandparents and great-grandparents may file an action under

this chapter for partial physical custody or supervised physical

custody in the following situations:

***

(2) where the relationship with the child began either with the

consent of a parent of the child or under a court order and

where the parents of the child:

(i) have commenced a proceeding for custody; and

(ii) do not agree as to whether the grandparents and or

great-grandparents should have custody under this

section[.]

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2).

-3-

J-A11006-25

with [] Father … that [G]randfather should have any periods of custody.”

Petition to Intervene, 8/2/21, ¶ 8.

On November 21, 2021, Mother filed a motion in York County to

schedule a case management conference, which was granted, and held on

December 7, 2021. At the conclusion of the conference, the trial court issued

an order determining that, “since conciliation was already held and a

temporary order already issued in Lebanon County,5 this matter is ripe for [a]

pre-trial conference.” Order, 12/9/21, at 2 (footnote added). The trial court

scheduled the pre-trial conference, at the parties’ request, for January 26,

2022. Id. By joint motion, the parties requested a continuance of the pre-

____________________________________________

5 The temporary order issued in Lebanon County is not contained within the

voluminous certified record. Significantly, however, in its February 8, 2022,

“Order Scheduling Custody Trial” (the scheduling order), the trial court

references a Lebanon County order (the August 2021 custody order), “entered

on August 16, 2021,” but “dated August 30, 2021.” Scheduling Order, 2/8/22,

at 2. The trial court describes the August 2021 custody order as granting

Mother sole legal custody of Children, and “suspending partial custody in

Father until further order[,] in light of Father’s criminal convictions.” Id.; see

also N.T., 2/8/22, at 12 (counsel for Appellees stating, “the current custody

order out of Lebanon [County] grants Mother sole legal and … sole physical

custody because Father[ is] incarcerated.” (some capitalization modified);

N.T., 4/7/22, at 4 (counsel for Appellees confirming Father was only seeking

rights to information concerning Children, and stating, “We are asking [for]

very minimal [rights] for [F]ather until he[ is] released from incarceration[,]

which at that point in time … he would have to file to modify.”).

-4-

J-A11006-25

trial conference.6 The trial court continued the pre-trial conference to

February 8, 2022.

At the pre-trial conference, Mother, through counsel,7 indicated that,

while she did not oppose Grandfather having contact with Children at Mother’s

discretion, she opposed the visitation requested by Grandfather. N.T., 2/8/22,

at 3; see also id. (Mother’s counsel indicating Mother believed Grandfather

was “asking for time as a back door so that [F]ather can have contact with

[Children] outside of [Mother’s] awareness.”).

Pertinently, at the pre-trial conference, the following exchange occurred

between the trial court and Mother’s counsel concerning Grandfather’s

standing:

THE COURT: … [R]elative to standing, [G]randfather is asking only

[for] bare-bones grandparents[’] rights under [Section] 5325.

Tell me why [G]randfather wouldn’t have standing under [Section]

5325[,] since there have been custody proceedings and the

parties don’t agree on whether [G]randfather should have any

custodial right[s]? That looks like a slam dunk to me for standing,

but tell me if I’m wrong.

[Mother’s counsel]: Your Honor, I don’t have a legal basis for

stating that you’re wrong at this point. It’s a matter that [Mother]

and I have discussed[,] and we have not resolved at this point[,]

so I leave it to Your Honor.

____________________________________________

6 The parties explicitly waived the timeliness requirements attendant to initial

custody conferences. See Joint Motion for Continuance, 1/25/22, at 1

(unpaginated); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1915.4(a) (directing that initial contact

with the court occur within 45 days from the filing of a custody complaint).

7 Several different attorneys have represented Mother throughout the

underlying custody case. Since May 31, 2022, including in the instant appeal,

Mother has acted pro se.

-5-

J-A11006-25

….

THE COURT: [Grandfather has] standing under Section 5325

only. And, therefore, [Grandfather] should be added to the

caption, but [M]other’s question of [A.P.] and [F]ather’s

relationship[,] since [Father] apparently is not the biological

father[ of A.P.], that is reserved for trial.

Id. at 7-8 (emphasis added); see also Scheduling Order, 2/8/22, at 6 (the

trial court finding that “Grandfather has standing under [S]ection 5325 only

….”).

The matter proceeded to trial on April 7, 2022, and June 2, 2022. Father

appeared by video from the state correctional institution in Phoenix,

Pennsylvania, represented by counsel. Grandfather appeared, represented by

the same counsel. Mother appeared, represented, on the first day of trial,8

by counsel.

Before the parties presented witness testimony, the trial court

interviewed A.P. in chambers in the presence of counsel.9 Thereafter, in open

court, the trial court summarized portions of its interview with A.P., stating

that A.P. (1) was “intelligent and articulate”; (2) referred to Grandfather as

____________________________________________

8 On May 5, 2022, Mother filed an “Entry of Appearance as a Self-Represented

Party.”

9 The certified record discloses that the trial court’s in camera interview with

A.P. was recorded, but not transcribed and made a part of the record. N.T.,

4/7/22, at 15.

-6-

J-A11006-25

“Pop Pop”; and (3) “wasn’t real eager to spend a lot of time with

[Grandfather].” N.T., 4/7/22, at 15-17.

Father testified concerning his and Grandfather’s relationship with

Children. Id. at 21. Father testified that he is not the biological father of

A.P., but explained he had been romantically involved with Mother since before

A.P.’s birth, and treated A.P. as his own child. Id. at 22. Father testified that

he and Mother remained in their relationship until A.P. was approximately

three years old. Id. at 23. According to Father, he had been involved in

Children’s lives until his incarceration in August 2021, overseeing their

education and attending their medical appointments. Id. at 24-25, 29.

Father claimed that Grandfather had consistently been involved in

Children’s lives, visiting both Children in the hospital shortly after their

respective births. Id. at 27. Father testified that Grandfather (1) visited

Children “once every month to every other month”; (2) assisted in diapering

and feeding Children as infants; (3) showed each Child affection; and (4)

treated Children “equally as if they were his own biological grandchildren[.]”

Id. at 27-28. Father testified that as recently as July 2021, Grandfather

exercised overnight custody of Children for four consecutive days. Id. at 29.

Father opined that Children never appeared afraid of Grandfather and seemed

“to have fun with [G]randfather.” Id. at 30. Father further testified that,

during Father’s custodial periods, Children would communicate with

Grandfather by video “[a]t least four times a week.” Id. at 34.

-7-

J-A11006-25

Grandfather confirmed that he has been involved in Children’s lives

since their births. Id. at 55-56. Grandfather testified that Children refer to

him as “Pop Pop.” Id. at 59. Grandfather explained that although he had not

seen Children since Father’s incarceration, Grandfather previously had an

active relationship with Children, seeing them at least once a month, and

speaking with Children through online video chats “[t]hree or four times a

week.” Id. at 62-63. According to Grandfather, he has been unable to have

a relationship with Children after Father’s incarceration, because Mother “cut

me off. She blocked me.” Id. at 64.

Following Grandfather’s testimony, the trial court adjourned the

proceedings and scheduled the matter for a second day of testimony. Id. at

76. The trial court dictated a temporary custody order granting Mother sole

legal and primary physical custody of Children; however, the trial court

directed Mother to supply Father with “all [of Children’s] educational, medical,

counseling, and all other records ….” Id. at 76.10 The trial court further

granted Grandfather partial physical custody of Children, to occur once per

month, for nine hours, on the first Saturday of each month. Id. at 77.

Additionally, the trial court granted Grandfather “phone or video”

____________________________________________

10 Although the trial court permitted telephonic contact between Father and

R.H., it specifically forbade contact in any form between Father and A.P. N.T.,

4/7/22, at 83.

-8-

J-A11006-25

communication with Children “at least three times per month” “as he may

arrange with [M]other[.]” Id.

After reconvening on June 2, 2022, Mother, now pro se, testified on her

own behalf. According to Mother, Grandfather had “never previously showed

an interest” in having the type of relationship with Children that he was

requesting the trial court to order. N.T., 6/2/22, at 6. Mother admitted to

blocking Grandfather on her social media accounts, but claimed she did so

“due to [Grandfather’s] own behavior of sending me rude messages.” Id.

Mother testified that she had made efforts since the first day of trial to

facilitate visitation and communication between Grandfather and Children, but

stated that she and Grandfather were unable to agree on mutually acceptable

terms. Id. at 9. On cross-examination, however, Mother was largely unwilling

to agree to any proposed court-ordered periods of communication or visitation

between Children and Grandfather. See id. at 22-25.

The trial court explained that, following the custody trial, the trial court

issued

what the court designated and believed to be a final custody order

on June 2, 2022. Mother was awarded sole legal custody and

primary physical custody[ of Children]. Grandfather was awarded

partial physical custody [of Children] for ten hours on alternating

Saturdays, and access to school, medical, and counseling

information. However, due to testimony regarding Mother’s lack

of compliance[ with the April 2022 temporary custody order], the

court scheduled a follow-up hearing, [to occur on] September 6,

2022, to assess how phone contact with Grandfather was going,

… etc. The court contemplated potentially expanding Father’s

and/or Grandfather’s rights or hearing any contempt petition

-9-

J-A11006-25

during the review hearing if Mother was still not abiding by the

court’s orders.

… At the follow-up hearing on September 6, 2022, Mother

remained non-compliant.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 2-3 (record citations omitted; footnotes

added; some punctuation modified).

Significantly, at the September 6, 2022, hearing, Mother again raised

the issue of standing:

[Mother]: [I]f I am correct, the [trial c]ourt does not hold subject

matter jurisdiction to be dealing with this matter in the first place,

which would be --

THE COURT: You can appeal to the Superior Court.

[Mother]: -- which would be an issue for you. Because if the [trial

c]ourt does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be

dismissed immediately ….

THE COURT: Why do you think we don’t have subject matter

jurisdiction?

[Mother]: Well, to start out with[,] you are applying [Section]

5325[,] using a section that would suggest a[] tiebreaker between

two parties with equal rights. And this is a case where one parent

has already been given sole custody. That was determined before

we even made it down to York[ County], which is legally defined

as the exclusive right to make major decisions.

THE COURT: Ma’am, I can change that to joint legal custody any

time I want.

N.T., 9/6/22, at 7-8. The trial court did not further address Mother’s challenge

to Section 5325.

At the conclusion of the September 6, 2022, hearing,

- 10 -

J-A11006-25

[t]he court admonished Mother … and scheduled an additional

follow-up hearing for December 13, 2022, advising Mother that

she had the right to appeal[ the trial court’s custody

determination]. Mother did appeal the April 7, 2022, June 2,

2022, and September [7], 2022[,] orders, without any assertion

of error regarding Grandfather’s standing. However, upon

appellate review, … the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined

that there was no final order of custody yet, since the [trial] court

indicated that it could still make changes to Father’s or

Grandfather’s rights[,] and [the Superior Court] determined it did

not yet have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. [See S.P. v. K.H. &

B.H., 1417 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished

memorandum at 4-5).] After various other proceedings11 and

appeals,12 … the court [conducted a final custody hearing on

October 7, 2024, and] entered a final order of custody [that same

day]….13

____________________________________________

11 Pertinently, following the custody trial, Mother filed, inter alia, a motion to

disqualify the trial court, and a motion for change of venue. See Motion to

Disqualify, 5/23/24, at 1 (unpaginated) (Mother asserting the trial court had

exhibited bias in favor of Grandfather throughout the custody proceedings);

Moton for Change of Venue, 5/23/24, at 1 (unpaginated) (Mother requesting

the trial court transfer the custody matter to Schuylkill County, where Mother

claimed she had been residing for six months from the date of filing). The

trial court denied both motions. Order, 7/8/24, at 2.

Additionally, on March 29, 2024, Mother filed a federal lawsuit claiming

that the trial court, among others, violated her civil rights. See S.P. v.

Menges, No. 1:24-CV-537, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196144, at *6 (M.D. Pa.

Oct. 29, 2024).

12 On May 11, 2023, the trial court found Mother in contempt for failing to

comply with the June 2, 2022, custody order. Mother appealed, and we

affirmed. See S.P. v. K.H. & B.H., 772 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 2024

(unpublished memorandum at 7). On October 7, 2024, the trial court again

found Mother in contempt for failing to comply with court orders; Mother

appealed, and that case is before this Court at 1558 MDA 2024.

13 On October 22, 2024, the trial court issued an amended order “correcting

grammatical errors[.]” Order, 10/22/24, at 1 (some capitalization modified).

- 11 -

J-A11006-25

Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 2-3 (record citations omitted; footnotes

added; punctuation modified).

The trial court scheduled the October 7, 2024, custody hearing to hear

testimony relative to Grandfather’s July 28, 2023, petition for modification of

custody, wherein Grandfather sought “shared legal and shared physical

custody” of Children. Petition for Modification of Custody, 7/28/23, ¶ 5; see

also N.T. (Pre-Trial Conference), 7/5/24, at 2 (the trial court stating, “[W]e

are scheduling a trial today on [G]randfather’s petition to modify.”). But see

N.T., 10/7/24, at 15 (Grandfather conceding that he could only pursue partial

physical custody under Section 5325); id. at 79 (the trial court denying, as

violative of Mother’s due process rights, Grandfather’s request to assert

standing pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324 (“Standing for any form of physical

custody or legal custody”), which Grandfather raised for the first time during

the October 7, 2024, custody hearing).

The October 7, 2024, hearing also served as a contempt hearing for

Mother’s alleged violations of the prior custody orders, the details of which are

irrelevant to our disposition. Prior to moving into the modification portion of

the hearing, the trial court found Mother in contempt, and sentenced her to

- 12 -

J-A11006-25

serve six months in York County Prison, unless and until she could satisfy

certain purge conditions.14

During the modification portion of the October 7, 2024, hearing, the trial

court interviewed Children, heard testimony from Appellees and Mother, and

thereafter issued a final custody order, outlining the parties’ custody rights to

Children before and after Mother’s incarceration. During Mother’s

incarceration, the trial court awarded Grandfather sole legal and sole physical

custody of Children. Order, 10/7/24, at 2. After Mother’s release from York

County Prison, the trial court awarded (1) Mother sole legal and primary

physical custody of Children; (2) Father telephonic and video communication

with Children; and (3) Grandfather partial physical custody of Children. Id.

at 3-6.

Mother timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, and contemporaneous

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement. The trial court has also complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Mother raises the following nine issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law, fundamental and

constitutional error, and abuse its discretion by finding standing

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2) and asserting jurisdiction over this

third-party intervention?

____________________________________________

14Mother purged her contempt, and was released from incarceration on

October 17, 2024, after serving ten days’ incarceration.

- 13 -

J-A11006-25

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion by misapplying the Psychological Parent Doctrine and

improperly extending it to include a “psychological grandparent”?

3. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by delaying the

entry of a final custody order and improperly conducting a second

trial under the guise of modification?

4. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion in failing to recuse or disqualify itself despite clear

evidence or appearance of bias, ill will, and/or malice?

5. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion by awarding partial custody to Grandfather without

properly weighing the statutory factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

5328, upholding the constitutional protections and presumption

favoring a fit parent, and adhering to public policy restricting third-

party custody to exceptional circumstances?

6. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion by granting Grandfather legal information rights under

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5336 without meeting statutory requirements?

7. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion by modifying custody provisions for Father without

properly considering the potential harm to [C]hildren under 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5330, as required for a parent with a conviction under

[Section] 5329(a), and by denying [Mother] notice and an

opportunity to be heard?

8. Did the trial court commit an error of law, a constitutional error,

and abuse its discretion by granting Grandfather sole physical and

legal custody, violating the presumption of custody in favor of

[Mother] under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5327 and infringing upon her due

process rights?

9. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its

discretion in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the custody

matter following the Motion for a Change of Venue?

Mother’s Brief at 6-8 (issues reordered; some formatting modified).

- 14 -

J-A11006-25

In her first issue, Mother challenges the trial court’s determination that

Grandfather had standing to pursue custody of Children pursuant to Section

5325(2). Mother’s Brief at 16. Mother faults the trial court for “prematurely

and erroneously assert[ing] that standing under [Section] 5325(2) was a

‘slam dunk,’ based on the mere appearance that the statutory elements were

satisfied.” Id. at 18. Mother emphasizes that Section 5325(2) only confers

standing to a grandparent where, inter alia, there is “a disagreement between

the parents regarding grandparental custody rights.” Id. at 21 (citing 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2)). Mother argues that the trial court “disregarded the

critical fact that, as of August 2021, [Mother] had sole physical and legal

custody of [C]hildren pursuant to an interlocutory order entered with Father’s

agreement.” Id. Mother concludes that “[w]ithout joint custodial rights or a

valid dispute between the parents warranting court intervention, any reliance

on Section 5325(2) becomes moot.” Id. at 20.15

Without addressing the substance of her claim, Appellees counter that

Mother waived her challenge to Grandfather’s standing. Appellees’ Brief at 8.

Appellees argue that

the trial court entered a final custody order dated June 2, 2022,

granting Grandfather standing and physical custody rights. …

Mother failed to appeal the June 2, 2022, final custody order[,]

which granted Grandfather standing[. A]s such[,] Mother waived

her ability to appeal a finding granting Grandfather standing.

After various other proceedings and a final custody hearing[,] the

court issued a final custody Order[,] dated October 7, 2024 ….

____________________________________________

15 The trial court did not address this issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

- 15 -

J-A11006-25

Mother offered no evidence that would lead the trial court to re-

evaluate a factual change in circumstances that would warrant a

change or to challenge Grandfather’s standing[,] as found by the

court prior to June 2, 2022.

Id. at 8-9 (citations omitted).

Preliminarily, we consider whether Mother has preserved her challenge

to Grandfather’s standing. In our memorandum quashing Mother’s appeal

from the trial court’s September 7, 2022, order, we observed that “a custody

order will be final and appealable only if it is both: 1) entered after the court

has completed its hearings on the merits; and 2) intended by the court to

constitute a complete resolution of the custody claims pending

between the parties.” S.P., 1417 MDA 2022 (unpublished memorandum at

4) (citation omitted; emphasis added). Because “the trial court scheduled [a]

December 13, 2022[,] hearing to contemplate granting legal custody to []

Grandfather and increasing physical custody to [] Grandfather[,]” we

concluded that the September 7, 2022, order was not appealable. Id.

Instantly, similar to the September 7, 2022, order, the trial court’s June

2, 2022, order scheduled a “follow up hearing” for September 6, 2022, where

the trial court explicitly stated, “the [c]ourt may at the follow up hearing give

either [F]ather and/or [G]randfather expanded rights” “if there is any more

game[-]playing by [M]other ….” Order, 6/2/22, at 3; see also Trial Court

Opinion, 12/9/24, at 2 (the trial court acknowledging that this Court

determined “that there was no final order of custody yet, since the [trial] court

indicated that it could still make changes to Father’s or Grandfather’s rights

- 16 -

J-A11006-25

….” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, Appellees’ claim that Mother waived her

challenge to Grandfather’s standing by failing to appeal the June 2, 2022,

order is meritless.

We further observe that Mother otherwise preserved her challenge to

Grandfather’s standing at several stages throughout the custody proceedings.

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.5 addresses matters of

jurisdiction and standing in custody cases, providing as follows:

(a) Question of Jurisdiction, Venue, or Standing.

(1) A party shall raise jurisdiction of the person or venue by

preliminary objection.

(2) A party may raise standing by preliminary objection or at

a custody hearing or trial.

(3) The court may raise standing sua sponte.

(4) In a third-party plaintiff custody action in which standing has

not been resolved by preliminary objection, the court shall address

the third-party plaintiff’s standing and include its standing decision

in a written opinion or order.

Pa.R.C.P. 1915.5(a) (emphasis added).

Here, our review of the record discloses that Mother filed preliminary

objections in Lebanon County on August 10, 2021, challenging Grandfather’s

standing to intervene, as well as several other purported defects in

Grandfather’s petition. See generally Preliminary Objections, 8/10/21.

Further, at the September 6, 2022, custody hearing, Mother specifically

argued that Grandfather lacked standing because the August 2021 custody

order granted Mother “sole custody[.]” N.T., 9/6/22, at 8; see also M.W. v.

- 17 -

J-A11006-25

S.T., 196 A.3d 1065, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“[O]ur rules permit parties to

raise issues related to standing beyond the 20-day period provided for

preliminary objections.” (citation omitted); Pa.R.C.P. 1915.5(a)(2) (“A party

may raise standing by preliminary objection or at a custody hearing or

trial.” (emphasis added)). Mother additionally challenged Grandfather’s

standing at the October 7, 2024, custody hearing, and in two motions to

dismiss filed prior to that hearing. See N.T., 1/7/24, at 9; Motion to Dismiss,

7/5/23, at 1 (unpaginated); Amended Motion to Dismiss, 7/12/23, at 1-2

(unpaginated). Thus, Mother clearly and repeatedly preserved her challenge

to Grandfather’s standing.

Having concluded Mother preserved her first issue, we turn to the merits

of her claim. “Threshold issues of standing are questions of law; thus, our

standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” M.S. v.

J.D., 215 A.3d 595, 598 (Pa. Super. 2019). In appeals from child custody

decisions, “our plenary scope of review is of the broadest type[.]” Interest

of K.N.L., 284 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2022) (quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, issues involving statutory interpretation are questions of law over

which “our review is plenary and non-deferential.” A.S. v. Pennsylvania

State Police, 143 A.3d 896, 903 (Pa. 2016) (citations omitted); see also id.

(stating that “[i]t is only when statutory text is determined to be ambiguous

that we may go beyond the text and look to other considerations to discern

legislative intent.”).

- 18 -

J-A11006-25

Our Supreme Court has explained that

[s]tanding relates to the capacity of an individual to pursue a

particular legal action, and requires the petitioning litigant be

adversely affected, or aggrieved, in some way. Traditionally, this

requirement is met where an individual demonstrates he or she

has a substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation

that must be direct and immediate, rather than remote, and which

distinguishes his interest from the common interest of other

citizens. In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of standing is a judicially-

created tool intended to winnow out litigants with no direct

interest in the matter, and to otherwise protect against improper

parties. Consequently, where the General Assembly expressly

prescribes the parties who may pursue a particular course of

action in Pennsylvania courts, legislative enactments may further

enlarge or distill these judicially-applied principles. Standing is a

threshold issue and must be resolved before proceeding to the

merits of the underlying action.

K.N.L., 284 A.3d at 136-37 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also

C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 898 (Pa. 2018) (stating that standing “is a

conceptually distinct legal question which has no bearing on the central issue

within the custody action—who is entitled to physical and legal custody of a

child in light of his or her best interests.” (citation omitted)).

“In child custody cases, the concept of standing is fluid and differs

from the typical determination regarding whether a party has a direct interest

in the outcome of litigation.” E.A. v. E.C., 259 A.3d 497, 501 (Pa. Super.

2021) (citation omitted; emphasis added); see also id. at 503 (stating that

“standing in child custody may be inconstant[.]”). “[O]ur case law establishes

that standing in child custody is indefinite and determined based upon the

facts when the issue is decided.” Id. at 502 (emphasis in original; citation

omitted).

- 19 -

J-A11006-25

Importantly,

principles of standing have been applied with particular

scrupulousness because they serve a dual purpose: not only to

protect the interest of the court system by assuring that actions

are litigated by appropriate parties, but also to prevent intrusion

into the protected domain of the family by those who are merely

strangers, however well-meaning.

Id. at 501 (emphasis added) (quoting M.W. v. S.T., 196 A.3d 1065, 1069

(Pa. Super. 2018)); see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)

(plurality) (stating the “liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and

control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty

interests recognized” by the law).

Pertinently, “[g]randparent standing to seek an order directing custody

or visitation is a creature of statute, as grandparents generally lacked

substantive rights at common law in relation to their grandchildren.” D.P. v.

G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204, 212 n.13 (Pa. 2016) (citations omitted).

We reiterate that the statute Appellees invoked to establish

Grandfather’s standing, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2), provides, in pertinent part,

that

grandparents … may file an action under this chapter for partial

physical custody or supervised physical custody … where the

relationship with the child began either with the consent of a

parent of the child or under a court order and where the parents

of the child … have commenced a proceeding for custody[] and [

] do not agree as to whether the grandparents … should have

custody….

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2).

- 20 -

J-A11006-25

Having set forth the applicable law, we turn to Mother’s claim that

Father’s lack of custody rights to Children proves fatal to Grandfather’s

standing claim. Although our review disclosed no published decisions

addressing this issue, we find our non-precedential decision of Lacer v. Selb,

281 A.3d 1070 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unpublished memorandum),16 instructive

and persuasive.

In Lacer, the paternal grandparents (grandparents) of O.L. (child) filed

a petition to intervene in a custody action between child’s mother (Lacer) and

father (J.B.). Lacer v. Selb, 281 A.3d 1070 (unpublished memorandum at

1). The Lacer Court summarized the pertinent facts that followed the

granting of a protection from abuse (PFA)17 order against J.B.:

[Lacer] filed a custody complaint against J.B. [] in 2015. In

December 2020, the court ordered that [Lacer] “shall be entitled

to make health, schooling, and other major decisions on behalf of”

[child]. Custody Order, filed Dec. 4, 2020. It further ordered that

[J.B.] “shall be entitled to information concerning [] child’s well-

being and [Lacer] shall keep [J.B.] informed of [] child’s health,

progress in school, and general welfare” and “is entitled to receive

directly from schools, health care providers, or other relevant

sources, information concerning the child,” but he could not

“communicat[e] with [] child directly or indirectly through school

online platforms or through school or healthcare

personnel.” Id. [J.B.] was “granted access to online school

platforms so long as [he did] not communicate directly with []

child, and so long as [] child remain[ed] unaware of [J.B.’s] online

presence.” Id. The order further provided that “[w]hile the [PFA

____________________________________________

16 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing this Court’s unpublished memoranda filed

after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value).

17 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122.

- 21 -

J-A11006-25

o]rder remains in place, [] child shall reside with [Lacer], and

[Lacer] shall have sole physical custody of [] child.” Id. The PFA

order is in place until May 2023.

Id. (unpublished memorandum at 1-2).

Grandparents petitioned to intervene, asserting standing pursuant to

Section 5325(2). Id. (unpublished memorandum at 2). Lacer filed a

preliminary objection to grandparents’ standing, arguing “that under Section

5325(2)(ii), the parents’ disagreement must be in the present tense, and

currently [J.B.] ‘can have no input as to the best interests of [c]hild.’” Id.

(unpublished memorandum at 3) (record citation omitted). The trial court

sustained Lacer’s preliminary objection. Id. On appeal, grandparents argued

that the facts of their case, “where one parent lacks the custodial rights to be

able to facilitate a relationship between the child and the grandparents, would

be an example of a situation Section 5325(2) is meant to address.” Id.

(unpublished memorandum at 5).

In affirming the trial court, the Lacer Court observed that the Child

Custody Act (the Act), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5321, et seq., “defines ‘legal custody’

as ‘the right to make major decisions on behalf of the child, including, but not

limited to, medical, religious and educational decisions.’ It defines ‘sole legal

custody’ as ‘the right of one individual to exclusive legal custody of the child.’”

Id. (unpublished memorandum at 5) (quoting 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322).

- 22 -

J-A11006-25

Considering the language of the Act in conjunction with our holding in

E.A., supra, the Lacer Court concluded the trial court did not err in granting

Lacer’s preliminary objection:

In E.A. …, this Court concluded that the requirement that the

parents “do not agree” was in the present tense, requiring a

current disagreement, noting the words “do not make an

exception to consider past disagreement.” [E.A., 259 A.3d at

504.] We concluded that “regardless of any prior disagreements

between parents about a grandparent’s ability to exercise partial

custody, the [Act] does not extend standing to grandparents to

file for partial physical custody under [Section 5325(2)] when the

predicate disagreement no longer exists.” Id.

Here, when construing the Act, and giving effect to all of its

provisions, it is clear that where a parent has sole legal

custody, such that they have the sole right to make “major

decisions on behalf of the child,” there can be no current

disagreement between the parents about whether

grandparents should have custody under the Act. Therefore,

the trial court did not err in finding [g]randparents lacked standing

under Section 5325(2).

Lacer, 281 A.3d 1070 (unpublished memorandum at 6-7) (footnote omitted;

emphasis added). But see id. (unpublished memorandum at 7) (noting that

“the concept of standing in child custody cases is fluid and can be re-evaluated

if factual changes in circumstances occur.” (quotation marks and citations

omitted)).

Persuaded by this reasoning, we conclude the trial court erred in

determining that Grandfather had standing to intervene pursuant to Section

5325(2). The August 2021 custody order, entered approximately a month

before the case was transferred to York County, vested sole legal and physical

custody of Children to Mother. As in Lacer, because Mother had sole legal

- 23 -

J-A11006-25

custody of Children when the trial court decided the issue of standing, there

could “be no current disagreement between the parents about whether

[Grandfather] should have custody under the Act.” See Lacer, 281 A.3d 1070

(unpublished memorandum at 7); see also E.A., 259 A.3d at 502 (“standing

in child custody is indefinite and determined based upon the facts when the

issue is decided.” (emphasis in original; citation omitted)). Accordingly,

Grandfather lacked standing under Section 5325(2) to intervene in the

underlying child custody action, and we are constrained to reverse the trial

court’s October 22, 2024, final custody order as it pertains to Grandfather.18

In her second issue, Mother argues that “the trial court entered a

presumption in favor of [Father] and assert[ed] parental rights on his behalf,

shifting the burden of proof to [Mother] to disprove that [the psychological

parent] doctrine19 should apply in this case[.]” Mother’s Brief at 29 (footnote

added).

____________________________________________

18Based on our disposition of Mother’s first issue, we need not address

Mother’s issues 5 or 6, which pertain solely to Grandfather.

19 At the April 7, 2021, custody hearing, concerning the issue of Father’s

standing relative to A.P., the trial court stated that “[t]he question is whether

[F]ather here is psychological father[,] in loco parentis or father by estoppel[,]

whatever[] you want to call it[,] relative to [A.P.]” N.T., 4/7/25, at 9. We

interpret the trial court’s reference to “psychological father” as relating to

standing under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324(2) (providing that “[a] person who stands

in loco parentis to the child” “may file an action under this chapter for any

form of physical custody or legal custody[.]”).

- 24 -

J-A11006-25

Mother cites no legal authority to support her claim, apart from noting

that “[t]hreshold issues of standing are questions of law[.]” Id. at 36 (quoting

M.W., 196 a.3d at 1069). Accordingly, this claim is waived. See Interest

of D.C., 263 A.3d 326, 336 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that “each question an

appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent

authority,” and recognizing that this Court “will not act as counsel and will not

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” (citations omitted)); O.G. v.

A.B., 234 A.3d 766, 777 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding an appellant had waived

for appellate review the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion

in making credibility determinations in a child custody matter, where the

appellant failed “to develop [the issue] in the argument section of her brief

with citations to relevant legal authority.” (citation omitted)).

We consider Mother’s third and fourth issues together, as they are

related. In her third issue, the crux of Mother’s argument is that the trial

court delayed entry of a final custody order due to its alleged bias against

Mother and in favor of Grandfather. See generally Mother’s Brief at 37-40.

Mother argues that the trial court delayed issuance of a final custody order “to

interfere with [Mother’s] fundamental parental rights.” Id. at 37.

In her fourth issue, Mother argues that the trial court “repeatedly

demonstrated a pattern of bias, ill will, and/or malice in its handling of

[Mother’s] case,” denying Mother due process. Id. at 53. Mother premises

her argument on the trial court’s adverse rulings against her. Id. at 53-54.

- 25 -

J-A11006-25

Mother concludes that the trial court’s refusal to recuse itself from the instant

custody proceedings “undermine[d] the integrity of the judicial process and

reflects a systemic denial of [Mother’s] due process rights.” Id.

Mother fails to support either argument with citation to relevant

authority; therefore, both issues are waived.20 See Interest of D.C., 263

A.3d at 336; O.G., 234 A.3d at 777. Even if preserved, however, these issues

would entitle Mother to no relief.

“We review a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to recuse for an

abuse of discretion.” Interest of L.V., 209 A.3d 399, 415 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citation omitted).

Indeed, our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse

is exceptionally deferential. We recognize that our trial judges

are honorable, fair and competent, and although we employ an

abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge

himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.

A trial judge should grant the motion to recuse only if a doubt

exists as to his or her ability to preside impartially or if impartiality

can be reasonably questioned.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

“In order to prevail, … the party seeking recusal[] must satisfy the

burden to produce evidence establishing bias, prejudice or unfairness which

raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability to preside impartially.” In

____________________________________________

20 Mother has additionally waived her claim that the trial court unduly delayed

entry of a final custody order by raising the issue for the first time on appeal.

See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).

- 26 -

J-A11006-25

re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 892 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks

omitted); see also Ware v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 577 A.2d 902, 904 (Pa.

Super. 1990) (“[A] mere recitation of unfavorable rulings … does not satisfy

the [movant’s] burden of proving judicial bias, prejudice or unfairness.”).

Where a trial judge determines that he can be impartial, he “must then

decide whether his … continued involvement in the case creates an

appearance of impropriety and/or would tend to undermine public confidence

in the judiciary. This is a personal and unreviewable decision that only the

jurist can make.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 188 A.3d 1217, 1225 (Pa.

Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Here, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court accurately and

comprehensively detailed the tortuous procedural history delaying the trial

court’s entry of a final custody order in the instant case. See generally Trial

Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 10-13.

Further, at the October 7, 2024, hearing, the trial court denied Mother’s

motion to disqualify, stating as follows:

I want to make it clear on the record that I have no personal bias

or prejudice either for or against any party or any counsel in this

matter, [and] didn’t have any ex parte communications. I have

no personal knowledge, … no economic interest, and yet I could

recuse if circumstances would reveal that there’s a reason why I

should not participate.

I’ll put on the record that [M]other did file a … federal

lawsuit. I was concerned whether [the federal lawsuit] might

affect recusal or disqualification, so I sought a formal opinion from

the [Pennsylvania] Judicial Ethics Advisory Board. They issued an

opinion and indicated that just because there was a pending

- 27 -

J-A11006-25

federal lawsuit does not mean that I need to recuse. The recusal

[decision] is up to me….

N.T., 10/7/24, at 3-4.

The trial court further justified its denial of Mother’s motion to disqualify

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion:

The [trial court] made determinations in prior proceedings

involving Mother based on the law and on the facts presented.

Likewise, the [trial court] assessed that [it] is able to conduct

additional proceedings in an impartial manner, without personal

bias or interest in the outcome. As the moving party, Mother had

the burden to demonstrate that recusal was required. Because

there is no per se failure of the test of impropriety based on an

unhappy, pro se litigant’s filing of a lawsuit naming a judge as a

party[,] and given the facts and circumstances in this particular

case, Mother did not meet her burden [of proving that recusal was

required]. Therefore, the [trial] court did not err in denying

Mother’s … disqualification motion[].

Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 20 (citation omitted).

The trial court’s factual findings are supported by the record, and its

conclusion is sound. The record discloses that the trial court’s delay in issuing

a final custody order resulted, in large part, from the parties’ numerous court

filings. Further, the mere fact that the trial court issued rulings adverse to

Mother’s position is clearly not evidence of “judicial bias, prejudice or

unfairness.” See Ware, 577 A.2d at 904. Accordingly, Mother’s third and

fourth issues entitle her to no relief.

In her seventh issue, Mother argues that the trial court “abused its

discretion by modifying custody provisions for Father without properly

considering the potential harm to [C]hildren under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5330[

- 28 -

J-A11006-25

(“Consideration of criminal charge”)], … and by denying [Mother] notice and

an opportunity to be heard.” Mother’s Brief at 45.

Mother failed to include this issue in her Rule 1925 concise statement;

it is therefore waived. See J.S. v. R.S.S., 231 A.3d 942, 951 (Pa. Super.

2020) (in a child custody case, finding that an appellant waived for appellate

review his claim that the trial court erred by denying his motion to transfer

child the matter out of state, where it was not included in his Rule 1925 concise

statement); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (in an

involuntary termination of parental rights case, finding that an appellant

waived an issue on appeal for failing to include the issue in her Rule 1925

concise statement, stating, “[T]his Court has no discretion in choosing

whether to find waiver. Waiver is mandatory, and this Court may not

craft ad hoc exceptions or engage in selective enforcement.” (citation

omitted; emphasis added)).

Even if preserved, our review of the record discloses that the trial court

adequately considered Children’s safety, and did not grossly abuse its

discretion in crafting a contact provision permitting limited communication

between Father and Children. See N.T., 10/7/24, at 135 (the trial court

finding that Father’s convictions and incarceration “ma[ke] physical custody

… in the near future an impossibility.”); Order, 10/7/24, at 3 (the trial court

indicating that “because of [Father’s] conviction[s,] he would be per se a

threat of safety to [C]hildren, [but] the [trial c]ourt does not believe that

- 29 -

J-A11006-25

phone or [Z]oom [video] contact affects the safety of [C]hildren ….”); see

also K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2015) (recognizing our

standard of review in custody cases is whether the trial court grossly abused

its discretion). Accordingly, even if preserved, Mother’s seventh issue would

entitle her to no relief.

In her eighth issue, Mother argues the trial court erred by granting

Grandfather sole legal and physical custody of Children during her period of

incarceration in York County Prison, following her contempt adjudication.

Mother’s Brief at 48. Mother seeks relief in the form of discharge of the

custody order as to Grandfather. Id. at 51.

As we have already determined that the October custody order as it

relates to Grandfather cannot stand, and because the custody provision

Mother complains of in the order has already expired, Mother’s issue is moot.

See M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 928 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding an

appellant’s child custody issues moot “because we are unable to provide the

relief she seeks with an order that will have legal force or effect.”).

In her final issue, Mother claims the trial court erred by denying her

motion for a change of venue. Mother’s Brief at 51. Mother asserts that she

“provided undisputed evidence that neither she, [C]hildren[,] nor any other

party had ties to York County[.]” Id. at 52. According to Mother, the lack of

“significant connections” the parties had to York County required a change of

venue. Id. (citing J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511, 516 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

- 30 -

J-A11006-25

Our standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a request for change

of venue in a child custody case is well settled:

A court’s decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction is subject to

an abuse of discretion standard of review and will not be disturbed

absent an abuse of that discretion. Under Pennsylvania law, an

abuse of discretion occurs when the court has overridden or

misapplied the law, when its judgment is manifestly unreasonable,

or when there is insufficient evidence of record to support the

court’s findings. An abuse of discretion requires clear and

convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or

failed to follow proper legal procedures.

B.A.B. v. J.J.B., 166 A.3d 395, 403 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted);

see also id. at 405-06 (“Nothing is more detrimental to an effective resolution

of custody matters than constant revisitation by different judges in different

jurisdiction.” (citation and brackets omitted)).

“[I]t is axiomatic that all counties within the Commonwealth maintain

subject matter jurisdiction of custody disputes.” Id. at 401 n.10 (Pa. Super.

2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Section 5427 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5401, et seq., sets forth the factors a court must

consider in determining whether the court is an inconvenient forum for the

parties to a child custody dispute:

(a) General rule.--A court of this Commonwealth which has

jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody

determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time

if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the

circumstances and that a court of another state is a more

appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised

upon motion of a party, the court's own motion or request of

another court.

- 31 -

J-A11006-25

(b) Factors.--Before determining whether it is an inconvenient

forum, a court of this Commonwealth shall consider whether it is

appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.

For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit

information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to

continue in the future and which state could best protect the

parties and the child;

(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this

Commonwealth;

(3) the distance between the court in this Commonwealth and

the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;

(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should

assume jurisdiction;

(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve

the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue

expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the

evidence; and

(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and

issues in the pending litigation.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5427; see also J.K., 102 A.3d at 513-14 (“[O]ur Legislature

has determined that [the UCCJEA’s] provisions ‘allocating jurisdiction and

functions between and among courts of different states shall also allocate

jurisdiction and functions between and among the courts of common pleas of

this Commonwealth.’” (quoting 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5471 (“Intrastate

application”)).

- 32 -

J-A11006-25

In B.A.B., supra, this Court affirmed a Lebanon County trial court’s

denial of a mother’s request to transfer venue of her child custody case to

York County. B.A.B., 166 A.3d at 404. The B.A.B. Court relied upon the trial

court’s thorough review of the statutory factors set forth in Section 5427(b),

and, significantly, credited the trial court’s determination that “mother’s []

motion to change venue [was] not about convenience; it [was] a thinly veiled

effort to obtain a new judge who she hope[d] w[ould] be more willing to buy

into the narrative she proposes.” Id. at 406 (capitalization modified; record

citation omitted); see also id. (“Mother’s subsequent recusal request, and

her later attempts to transfer jurisdiction and venue to York County, provided

evidentiary support for the trial court’s finding that [m]other engaged in

blatant forum-shopping.” (quotation marks and record citation omitted).

Here, the trial court explained the underlying proceedings relevant to

Mother’s claim, and its rationale for denying Mother’s motion for change of

venue:

The [trial] court denies that it erred or abused [its] discretion.

Mother filed a[ ] motion for change of venue on June 21, 2024[,]

… and presented it in custody motions court on July 2, 2024.

Mother’s motion indicated that [Mother] and Children had moved

to Schuylkill County[, Pennsylvania,] more than six months prior,

that no party retained significant connections with York County,

that [Mother] could travel twenty-one miles less to court, and

Grandfather’s drive would be reduced by twenty-one miles. … At

custody motions court, Grandfather objected to a change of venue

for several reasons. First, the parties were in the middle of a

custody litigation for which a custody pre-trial conference was

scheduled for three days later on July 5, 2024. Grandfather

argued that th[e trial] court had the knowledge and experience in

the case and a change now would cause unjustifiable delay.

- 33 -

J-A11006-25

Grandfather indicated a desire to proceed to a final custody

[proceeding]. Further, Grandfather argued that Mother had

relocated without notice of relocation, essentially arguing that

Mother had come to court with unclean hands. Mother argued

that notice of relocation was not applicable[, acknowledging that

she had moved with Children], and again argued th[e trial]

court[’s] lack of jurisdiction, Grandfather’s lack of standing, etc.

The [trial] court considered its continuing jurisdiction; the parties

lack of agreement; the distance between York County and

Schuylkill County’s Court of Common Pleas, saving the parties

only 21 miles; the lack of any history or assertion of domestic

violence between Mother and Grandfather; the length of time

Children had resided outside [of] York County; and th[e trial]

court’s vastly greater familiarity with the facts and issues pending

litigation of the parties than the Schuylkill County Court; etc. In

weighing the factors pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5427(b), the court

decided not to relinquish its continuing jurisdiction and denied

Mother’s motion to change venue. Thus, the court denies error in

this matter.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/9/24, at 14-15.

The trial court’s factual findings are supported by the record and its

conclusion is sound. Upon review, we determine the trial court did not err in

its application of Section 5427’s statutory factors, or abuse its discretion in

denying Mother’s request for a change of venue. See B.A.B., 166 A.3d at

403. Accordingly, Mother’s final issue merits no relief.

Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s October 22, 2024,

custody order as it relates to Grandfather. The remaining provision of the

order permitting Father telephonic and/or video communication with Children,

consistent with the regulations and protocols of the Department of

Corrections, is affirmed.

Order reversed in part, and affirmed in part. Jurisdiction relinquished.

- 34 -

J-A11006-25

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/16/2025

- 35 -