Sposato, A. v. Sposato, A.

J-A18019-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ALISHA M. SPOSATO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

:

v. :

:

:

ANTHONY SPOSATO, II : No. 189 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered December 17, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at

No(s): CV-2020-003763

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2025

Alisha M. Sposato (“Mother”)1 appeals from the final custody order

entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”)

awarding Mother and Appellee, Anthony Sposato, II (“Father”), shared legal

custody and Father partial physical custody of the parties’ three children, A.S.

(born June 2010), D.S. (born May 2012), and O.S. (born January 2016)

(collectively, “the Children”). After careful review, we affirm.

We begin with an overview of this protracted and contentious custody

battle, as set forth by the trial court in its sixty-eight-page findings of fact and

conclusions of law in support of its final custody order:

The [trial c]ourt has repeatedly remarked that this matter is

reminiscent of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House. It is also

reminiscent of a Greek tragedy. The conflict between the parties

____________________________________________

1 Mother now goes by the surname Angelozzi.

J-A18019-25

has been long and profound. The [trial c]ourt has found itself with

a birds[’]s eye seat to witness the emotional and psychological

impact on both parents. Most importantly, the [trial c]ourt has

witnessed the adverse psychological and emotional impact of the

parties’ inability to resolve this custody dispute has had on the

[C]hildren. Notwithstanding the best efforts of multiple mental

health providers, experts, the attorneys, [and] the guardian ad

litem [(“GAL”)], the chasm between these parties has become

deeper, with Mother [] seeking that Father’s physical custody be

supervised.

Despite multiple days of trial, the crux of this dispute can be

easily summarized: each parent contends that the other parent

poses a safety risk. Mother alleges that Father suffers from fits of

rage, is abusive and has proved himself an indifferent father.

Child[L]ine[2] reports alleging abuse have also been filed during

the pendency of this custody action. Mother claims that [the

C]hildren are not safe with Father.

On the other hand, Father denies that he suffers from fits of

rage. Further, he alleges that all of the investigations of

allegations of child abuse have also been deemed unfounded by

child protective services and these allegations have no merit.

Father further alleges that Mother’s actions adversely

impacted the [C]hildren’s safety. He claims that Mother has

engaged in “parental alienation,” thus resulting in the severance

of his parental ties with the [C]hildren to the extent that the

[C]hildren are afraid of him, manifest inappropriate anger against

him, and no longer wish to see him at all. He claims that Mother

fostered that fear and those estrangements in the [C]hildren.

Finally, he claims that this “parental alienation” has greatly

affected the [C]hildren’s mental health. He seeks shared physical

custody and legal custody.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Final Custody Order,

12/17/2024, at 22-23.

____________________________________________

2 See 55 Pa. Code § 3490.4 (defining ChildLine); see also 23 Pa.C.S. §§6301-

6388 (Child Protective Services Law).

-2-

J-A18019-25

The nature of this case, as well as the issues raised by Mother on appeal,

require a lengthier-than-usual recitation of the facts and procedural history

underlying this matter. Mother and Father married in January 2005. On June

15, 2020, Mother filed a complaint for custody seeking primary physical and

joint legal custody.3 Mother simultaneously filed a petition for exclusive

possession of the martial home, claiming Father voluntarily left, had rages of

anger, argued and fought with her in front of the Children, damaged property

in the home, and kicked down the door to the primary bedroom while she was

inside. On August 12, 2020, the trial court approved the parties’ stipulation

granting Mother exclusive possession of the marital home.

Following a custody conference, a hearing officer recommended the

parties share legal custody and Mother have primary physical custody subject

to Father’s partial custody, which occurred every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m., every other Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and every other

Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The trial court approved these

recommendations on September 8, 2020.

____________________________________________

3 On the same date, Mother filed a complaint in divorce, which included counts

for primary physical and joint legal custody.

-3-

J-A18019-25

The next month, Father sought to modify his custody. 4 He also filed a

petition for contempt,5 which the trial court denied without prejudice on

November 9, 2020. Following a second custody conference, a hearing officer

recommended the parties continue the same physical custody schedule with

additional terms,6 which the trial court approved on December 3, 2020.

On February 3, 2021, Father filed a petition for contempt, claiming that

Mother failed to ensure the Children answer his daily phone calls and that

Mother disparaged him in front of them.7 Shortly thereafter, the parties

appeared before a hearing officer, who recommended Father’s partial physical

custody increase to overnight visits every other weekend and the parties begin

____________________________________________

4 Father asserted he received limited partial physical custody because Mother

alleged he was abusing steroids. After his court-ordered urine test proved

negative, he sought joint legal and shared physical custody.

5 Father alleged Mother unilaterally removed Father’s access to the parental

controls of a communication application, “Messenger Kids,” which both

parents previously controlled; blocked him from messaging or videoing with

the Children; and unilaterally enrolled the Children in sports and activities

without consulting him.

6 The modifications included allowing the non-custodial parent a daily phone

call at 4:00 p.m.; ordering the parties to attend family counseling and follow

recommendations; allowing the Children to continue their sports and

activities; prohibiting the parties from call blocking, disparaging each other,

and discussing significant others and custody matters with the Children except

in therapy; and working with the family therapist on overnight visits with

Father.

7 The trial court scheduled a hearing on the petition for May 19, 2021; that

same date, Father withdrew the petition.

-4-

J-A18019-25

co-parent counseling with Andrea Serber, MSS, LSCW, QCSW. The trial court

approved the recommendations on February 16, 2021.

On May 23, 2021, Mother and Father were involved in an incident in the

parking lot of an ice rink where two of the Children played hockey, which the

trial court found was a “seminal moment in this dispute” and “mutual

commission of domestic violence.” Memorandum and Interim Order,

3/16/2022, at 2. Mother and her mother (“Maternal Grandmother”)

confronted Father outside as he was getting the Children into his vehicle. Id.

Mother started a verbal altercation with Father, which escalated to Mother

spitting on Father’s face, “an action which prompted Father to lay hands on

Mother’s face and resulted in a black eye.” Id. at 2-3. Father claimed he was

trying to push Mother away; Mother claimed that he punched her. Id. at 3.

The trial court found “both parties at fault, particularly Mother for having

instigated an inappropriate conversation in the presence of the [C]hildren and

striking the first blow.” Id. at 3. Police were summoned, no charges were

filed, and the parents each obtained temporary protection from abuse (“PFA”)

orders against each other.8 Id. Father exercised his partial custodial custody

immediately following the ice rink incident and again two weeks later during

the weekend of June 4, 2021. As discussed below, what followed was a nearly

____________________________________________

8 The parties withdrew the temporary PFA orders on December 2, 2021. Id.

-5-

J-A18019-25

three-year period where Father did not enjoy any custodial time with the

Children.

On June 28, 2021, the parties appeared for a custody conference before

a hearing officer, at which Ms. Serber testified. Ms. Serber stated that she

had been working with the family since February 2021 and developed with

Mother and Father a detailed six-page addendum to their current custody

order.9 N.T., 6/28/2021, at 3-4. She described the family dynamic as “super

contentious” and testified that she recently tried to help get the Children to

go with Father for his custodial time on Father’s Day weekend in June 2021,

but they refused to get out of the car. Id. Ms. Serber testified that the

Children had previously been going with Father and “enjoying their time” but

they were now “definitely … suffering from severe split loyalties.” Id. at 5.

She further testified that she had worked with Mother in advance on strategies

to communicate with the Children to successfully transition them to Father’s

care. Id. at 4-5. She believed “very strongly” that the Children were “in

tune” with the parents’ contentiousness, experiencing “a lot of internal

conflict,” and it was easier for them to “just stay with [Mother] at this point”

because they were “aligned with [her].” Id. at 5. She explained that they

____________________________________________

9 We note that the trial court found that if Mother and Father had followed the

guidelines in the addendum they crafted with Ms. Serber, “it is unlikely that

the aggravated conflict between the parties would have persisted.” See

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024, at 5 n.6.

-6-

J-A18019-25

were “feeling guilty” not seeing Father but afraid to disappoint Mother if they

went with him. Id.

The hearing officer adopted the addendum with certain modifications.

In pertinent part, it provided that Father have partial physical custody during

the summer on an alternate weekly schedule: week A from Thursday at 4:00

p.m. until Monday at 4:00 p.m., provided Father proved he worked the day

shift remotely from home and could adequately supervise the Children, and

week B from Thursday at 4:00 p.m. to Friday at 8:00 p.m. Further, the

hearing officer recommended: (1) no weapons in the parties’ homes; (2) the

parties must follow all court orders, including PFA, criminal, and civil orders;

(3) no physical or verbal altercations in the presence of the Children; (4) the

Children to continue with their counselor, Season Apple; (5) the parties to

continue co-parent counseling with Ms. Serber; and (6) custody exchanges to

occur at the local police department. The trial court approved the

recommendations in a temporary custody order on July 2, 2021.

Father filed an emergency petition in custody on July 7, 2021, alleging

that the Children continued to refuse to visit him during his custodial time

because of Mother’s disparagement of him to the Children. The trial court

denied it without prejudice the next day, finding that Father failed to allege

any facts suggesting imminent harm to the Children. The following day, on

July 9, 2021, Father filed an appeal of the temporary custody order and a

demand for a hearing.

-7-

J-A18019-25

In early August 2021, the parties filed petitions for contempt against

each other,10 which resulted in the parties’ agreement to, and the trial court’s

approval of, an addendum to the temporary custody order on September 24,

2021. The September 24, 2021 addendum provided a fifteen-minute grace

period for custodial exchanges; the Children to continue therapy with Ms.

Apple; Mother and Father to continue co-parent counseling with Ms. Serber;

and the parties to consider modification of their PFA order.

On November 21, 2021, the parties met with Ms. Serber. She first met

with Mother and the Children, and after Mother left, Father arrived. Ms. Serber

reported that the Children initially hesitated to interact, but within a very short

time, the younger two children, D.S. and O.S., began laughing and discussing

old memories with Father, and showed “no sign of fear or emotional

discomfort.” N.T., 2/18/2022, Ex. D-3 (Ms. Serber email dated November 21,

2021). The oldest child, A.S., did not engage with Father. Ms. Serber believed

this was a very positive approach that would likely prove positive for A.S. as

well, but for that to happen, the Children must “know and really believe that

both their parents are supportive and encouraging with them participating and

____________________________________________

10 Father asserted, among other things, that the Children continued to refuse

to go with him during his custodial time because of Mother’s disparagement

of him to the Children and that he had enjoyed no custodial time since at least

the temporary custody order. Mother countered by asserting in her petition

that Father impermissibly contacted A.S. directly instead of through Mother;

used third parties for custodial exchanges; failed to attend certain sporting

events of the Children in May, June, and July 2021; and spent his May 21-23,

2021 custodial weekend in the presence of his girlfriend.

-8-

J-A18019-25

being a part of defining what moving forward/healing with [Father] looks like.

If the [C]hildren feel this true encouragement, the time with [him] would

improve.” Id.

Two days later, on November 23, 2021, the parties agreed to a second

addendum to the temporary custody order, which the trial court approved on

December 1, 2021. The December 1, 2021 second addendum provided that

the parties’ respective petitions for contempt be held in abeyance; Ms. Serber

work with the parties to address Father’s make-up custodial time; the parties

conduct custodial exchanges at Ms. Serber’s office; Mother encourage the

Children to go with Father for his custodial time; Ms. Apple be discharged as

the Children’s therapist; and Ms. Serber refer the parties to a therapist for the

Children.11

On December 17, 2021, Father filed an emergency petition in custody,

alleging, among other things, that since June 18, 2021, the Children refused

to go with him during his custodial time; Mother repeatedly posted on social

media about Father and held him out as a narcissist and abuser to family,

friends, and the Children’s teachers and coaches; and that as a result of

Mother’s disparagement of him to the Children, his relationship with them

deteriorated to the extent that the two oldest children responded with

profanity or hateful messages when he said he loves them.

____________________________________________

11 The Children began therapy with Nadine Colgan, MS, NCC, LPCMH in late

December 2021.

-9-

J-A18019-25

The trial court scheduled a hearing on the parties’ petitions in contempt

that had been held in abeyance, as well as Father’s emergency petition in

custody. In the meantime, the parties agreed on January 31, 2022, to a third

addendum to the temporary custody order. The third addendum detailed,

among other things, Mother and Father’s duties to resume co-parent

counseling sessions with Ms. Serber, continue the Children’s therapy with Ms.

Colgan, and initiate reunification therapy with Ms. Serber between Father and

the oldest child, A.S. The trial court approved the addendum on February 9,

2022.

The trial court held three hearings in mid-February and early March 2022

on the parties’ August 2021 petitions in contempt and Father’s December 2021

emergency petition in custody. At the February 18, 2022 hearing, the trial

court qualified Ms. Colgan and Ms. Serber as experts in the areas of family-

based therapy and reunification counseling and admitted their respective

reports. See N.T., 2/18/2022, at 33, 82, Exs. D-1 (Colgan report dated

February 16, 2022), D-2 (Serber report dated February 14, 2022).

Ms. Serber reported that during the past year of working with the family,

she discussed with Mother and Father their parental influence and the

necessary strategies to ensure the Children “did not adopt unnecessary

anxiety or negative emotion towards either parent.” Id. at 85, 87, Ex. D-2.

However, “[r]ather than progressing in a positive direction” during that time,

tensions increased and issues escalated, “resulting in the [C]hildren having

- 10 -

J-A18019-25

major split loyalties[ and] pure anger towards [Father]” and they had “become

completely estranged” from him. Id., Ex. D-2. She described a time when

the parties agreed to meet as a family; one of the goals was for the parents

to express to the Children that “whatever the parental problems may be,” they

have “two parents who love them.” Id. In preparation, Ms. Serber

encouraged both parents to share with the Children that they were sorry for

the ice rink incident, they both were at fault, and they feel horrible that the

situation got out of hand. Id. She stated that both parties recognized the

focus of the meeting was “to allow for acknowledgement, clarity, and

forgiveness” so the Children could hear that their parents wanted everyone to

move forward. Id. However, the meeting was unsuccessful because Mother

“was unable to follow the script,” believing Father continued to lie and “she

could not be disingenuous” with the Children. Id. Ms. Serber noted that an

“often parroted opinion” of the Children is that Father is a liar. Id.

Ms. Serber further reported that the Children denied “any specific

rupture” with Father and the younger two, D.S. and O.S., said, among other

things, that Father has rage and aggression problems but could not provide

any specific examples when asked. Id. She explained that the Children “feel

the need to stick with the narrative and are unwilling to consider forgiveness”

of Father. Id. The family dynamic had become “overwhelming and confusing”

for the Children, and she observed that they all were nervous and often tearful

and could not make eye contact with her. Id. D.S. and O.S. had “increase[ed]

- 11 -

J-A18019-25

psychosomatic illnesses that are in concert with symptoms of stress, guilt, and

anxiety.” Id. The Children were not open to therapy and “refuse[d] any

efforts to move forward and heal their relationship” with Father. Id. Ms.

Serber concluded:

Because the [C]hildren are never able to identify a personal

rupture, in their own histories, with [Father] that would result in

the guillotine of [him], it is difficult to understand their

exaggerated anger response and refusal to interact with [him]. It

is true that the [C]hildren often parrot opinions and statements

about [Father] that have been made by [Mother] … and that they

seem to be angry about issues that would be more adult in nature

and developmentally unusual for children to be focused on. For

this reason, there is no doubt that the [C]hildren are privy to

having some adult information, such as marital information from

the past. [Mother] reports making certain that the [C]hildren are

not aware of information not meant for them to hear and that their

shared anger and upset is from their firsthand experience.

[Mother] recognizes that all of what is happening between the

[C]hildren and [Father] is becoming an emotional burden on

[them], but often feels that if [Father] would just tell the truth,

that maybe that might be the start of moving forward. [Father]

consistently states that [] the memories that the [C]hildren are

reporting about him and their relationships with him are false and

because he is certain of this, he can only blame [Mother] for

actively working to alienate the [C]hildren from him. Whether

alienation or parental influence coupled with the strong alignment

with [Mother, the Children are] at high risk of losing their

relationships and connection with [Father] for the rest of their

childhood. What is agreed to by both parties and [Ms. Serber] is

that this continued anger towards [Father] is emotionally

damaging and [] requires an intervention to stop the current

situation immediately.

Id.

The Children’s therapist, Ms. Colgan, opined that the Children “have

made no progress in individual therapy” with her and “there will be no

progress until the parents are able to work together.” Id. Ex. D-1; see also

- 12 -

J-A18019-25

id. at 48. The Children reported to her that they did not like Father because

of the ice rink incident, he worked nights and slept during the day when they

were younger, he failed to attend some of their sporting events, and he lies.

Id., Ex. D-1. She noted that the Children all “parrot each other” regarding

Father and that they assign blame for the ice rink incident solely to Father

even though both parents were at fault. Id. at 77, Ex. D-1. Ms. Colgan

observed the Children refuse to interact with Father—when he called and said

he loved and missed them they hung up on him within seconds. Based on

what the Children told her, Ms. Colgan believed Mother clearly “has put the

[C]hildren in the middle and has shared information with them to support the

lack of encouragement for [them] to have a healthy, normal relationship with

[Father].” Id.; see also id. at 41-46. She continued:

The [C]hildren repeat the same phrases and stories and refuse to

admit that their relationships with [Father] were positive ones and

that he did play a positive role in their lives. No child alienates or

erases their relationship with a father over one incident. Even

children who are abused by a parent will show up loving that

parent and doing their best to please that parent.

Id., Ex. D-1; see also id. at 48. She noted that the two older children, A.S.

and D.S., did not display any guilt over their behavior toward Father, nor did

the Children show any empathy during the phone calls; Mother did nothing to

encourage the Children to engage with him or discourage their disrespectful

behavior toward him. Id., Ex. D-1. She recommended discontinuing therapy

with her because it “only continues the false narrative” from the Children,

prevents a relationship with Father, and causes more anger and regression

- 13 -

J-A18019-25

from the Children. Id. at 49-50, Ex. D-1. She recommended the Children

participate, with Father only, in a four-day intensive therapeutic program in

Great Neck, New York, known as Turning Points for Families (“Turning

Points”), followed by a ninety-day period where Father has sole physical

custody and the Children are without the influence of Mother. Id. at 40, 51,

Ex. D-1.

Following the hearings, the trial court entered a memorandum and

interim order on March 16, 2022. The trial court denied with prejudice Father’s

August 2021 petition and granted his December 2021 emergency petition in

part.12 It found that “although Father failed to prove that his weakened

relationship with [the C]hildren was a result of Mother’s manipulation, a plan

needed to be devised to mend Father’s and [the C]hildren’s relationship before

[they] began to experience the long-term damage due to their estrangement

from Father[.]”13 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024, ¶ 43

(citing Memorandum and Interim Order, 3/16/2022). Thus, the trial court

appointed Heather Green, Ph.D., to engage in reunification counseling,

treatment, and education with the family. The trial court found that although

Mother cooperated in family therapy and co-parent counseling, and brought

____________________________________________

12 Mother withdrew her August 2021 contempt petition.

13 The trial court found that “Ms. Colgan failed to spend enough time with the

[C]hildren to credit her suggestion that Mother alienated [the C]hildren from

Father.” Memorandum and Interim Order, 3/16/2022, ¶ 7.

- 14 -

J-A18019-25

the Children for custody exchanges, “her negative attitudes about Father

ha[d] infected [the C]hildren to the extent that they no longer wish[ed] to

engage in a relationship with him.” Order Appointing Dr. Green, 3/16/2022.

Ultimately, Dr. Green’s efforts to reunify Father and the Children were

unsuccessful.

On June 20, 2022, the trial court appointed Ms. Jordan Reilly as the GAL

for the Children, and on July 7, 2022, appointed Constance Mesiarik, Ph.D.,

J.D., as a custody evaluator. The trial court ordered Dr. Mesiarik to perform

custody and psychological evaluations and prepare a written report with

specific recommendations for legal and physical custody.

The GAL submitted a report to the trial court on October 4, 2022. She

reported that “[t]here is universal agreement among the clinicians involved in

this case that Mother has engaged in severe parental alienation that has

caused and continues to cause serious harm to the [C]hildren.” N.T.,

10/4/2023, Ex. C-1 (GAL Report dated October 4, 2022). With respect to the

ice rink incident, the GAL reported that the Children all “found that Father was

solely and unforgivably responsible,” which was unsupported by a video of the

incident. Id. She noted that each child remembered their family vacations

with Father, including a trip to Disney, as fun but were unwilling to associate

that fun with Father. Id. The GAL reported that the Children did not use age-

appropriate language to describe Father but engaged in “completely normal

conversation” on other topics. Id. When the Children gave reasons for not

- 15 -

J-A18019-25

wanting anything to do with Father, the GAL noted that they “referenced

things of which they should have no direct knowledge,” and when the GAL

questioned them, the Children unsuccessfully tried to “turn those reports into

personal recollections.” Id. She explained that standard reunification

counseling was problematic because any progress made with the Children in

individual sessions “was immediately undone by Mother” and that the Children

“would end one session being very affectionate and open to time with Father

but would return for each new session angrier and more determined to isolate

from Father.” Id. Because of this, the GAL agreed with the other involved

clinicians as to the need for a “drastic reunification protocol” and

recommended Turning Points. Id. She further recommended that Father be

awarded temporary sole legal and physical custody of the Children to allow

program participation “without sabotage from Mother.” Id. The GAL also

recommended Mother attend individual therapy and demonstrate her

commitment to fostering a healthy relationship between the Children and

Father before she resumed any significant physical custody. Id. The GAL

opined that “delaying drastic reunification is harmful to the [C]hildren as

Mother’s relentless alienation of Father is tantamount to abuse,” and the

longer the pattern continued, the more harm it will cause to the Children, their

self-esteem, and their ability to engage in healthy future relationships. Id.

Dr. Mesiarik spent approximately one year evaluating the family before

authoring her fifty-six-page custody report on July 6, 2023. Therein, she

- 16 -

J-A18019-25

opined that “Mother’s anger towards Father [] continued to contribute to the

deterioration of his relationship with the [C]hildren” because she appeared “to

have modeled these behaviors in front of” them. N.T., 10/3/2023, Ex. D-2

(Dr. Mesiarik Evaluation, 7/6/2023). Although the custody matter was “far

from peaceful” during the first year after separation, she noted a “significant

deterioration” after the ice rink incident in May 2021.

It is important to note that there were no allegations made

at the time of separation that Father was physically abusing the

[C]hildren. In reviewing the case history, it is apparent that

Mother also denied physical abuse by Father towards her as

recently as her [e]mergency [r]oom visit in May 2021, and there

were no reports of physical abuse in the mental health records []

received from LifeStance, where Mother sought individual

counseling following separation. With regards to the [C]hildren,

Mother reported that she later learned that the [C]hildren reported

that Father had physically abused them; specifically, he would hit

them and threaten to hit them more if they told Mother. … When

I asked the [C]hildren about these allegations, none of them were

able to provide specific examples of something that had occurred

leading to Father hitting them, though [D.S.] did state Father

would hit them, which he pointed out without any prompting “left

a red mark on [them].” The [C]hildren primarily made statements

suggesting that Father was not involved in their daily lives. [A.S.]

even reported that the relationship “wasn’t horrible.” I am

concerned about the fact that the [C]hildren have worked with

multiple counselors with experience in working with families in

similar circumstances. All four counselors the family worked with

denied the [C]hildren ever reporting to them that Father hit them,

even though, in their role, they would have focused on asking the

[C]hildren about their relationship with Father. Most recently, I

received an email from Mother with concerns that seemed to

suggest Father possibly engaging in sexually inappropriate

behavior with the [C]hildren. As examples, she wrote that Father

has slept next to the [C]hildren in his underwear, that he has

reached into her car and grabbed [A.S.’s] thigh, and that he has

forced his affection on the [C]hildren in the form of hugs and

kisses, which made them feel uncomfortable.

- 17 -

J-A18019-25

I have significant concerns in how the [C]hildren have

presented, not just with me, but with other providers as well.

Their absolute refusal to see [F]ather is extreme and not

proportional to the reasoning they provide. Additionally, they

were generally unable to describe positive interactions they have

had with Father in the past, only recalling negative memories.

Their negative view of Father has also extended to negative views

of his family. For example, they referred to Father’s family as

alcoholics, an issue which is very adult in nature and not

something a young child is likely to even recognize, which

suggests they are being influenced by others, whether

intentionally or not. Additionally, in my opinion, their behaviors

do[ not] demonstrate fear of [F]ather. Rather, the [C]hildren

were generally disrespectful in their presentation. Examples

include [A.S.] confronting [F]ather and cursing at him or telling

him that she hates him, and [D.S.] sending inappropriate texts to

Father. I am also very concerned about the information posted

online, whether from Mother, her family, or even [her] friends,

with social medial posts and the GoFundMe page as examples.

These are messages that the [C]hildren may eventually read when

they are older and only serve to exacerbate the current situation,

and further the hostility inherent in these family dynamics.

Id. She reported that the parties’ hostility made it impossible for Mother and

Father to co-parent and there was “little to no effective communication”

between them even though Father has shared legal custody. Id. Dr. Mesiarik

opined that the Children

have been influenced by [M]other in their relationship with

[F]ather. Whether intentional or not, Mother’s behaviors have

fueled the[ C]hildren’s disrespect of and anger towards [F]ather.

Mother was clearly angry in response to the circumstances

surrounding separation and struggled in managing her anger and

her responses to the situation, which was certainly observed by

the [C]hildren and created a situation where the [C]hildren were

caught in a loyalty bind and did not feel free to love [F]ather and

share a relationship with his partner. Furthermore, the counselors

who worked with the family also provided examples of their own

observations of Mother’s behaviors contributing to the [C]hildren

feeling this way. What was certainly clear from the information

obtained in the current evaluation is how much turmoil [the

- 18 -

J-A18019-25

C]hildren are currently experiencing. Unfortunately, their ability

to address this conflict and heal their relationships in a supportive,

therapeutic relationship appears to have been significantly

impacted by Mother’s consistent interference with efforts to heal

and support the relationship the [C]hildren have with Father. It

is apparent that Mother has not been receptive to the guidance

provided by multiple counselors and that she has done little to try

to remedy the situation, the result of which is to cause further

harm to [the C]hildren.

I believe the two younger children are also influenced by

[A.S.], who is protective of her siblings and outspoken in how she

feels about Father. While it is impossible to know with absolute

certainty what has transpired between the family members, there

is enough evidence to support a finding that the circumstances

undoubtedly exacerbated post separation. There was ample

evidence to suggest positive relationships between the [C]hildren

and [F]ather prior to separation, and even in the year following

separation. This is not to say that Father’s behavior has been

without fault and there is certainly a need for him to address his

role in the family dynamics. For example, it is without question

that the introduction of a significant other shortly after separation

can be difficult for children and, although the [C]hildren may not

have met [Father’s girlfriend] until later in the relationship, they

were aware of Father living with her just four months after their

parents’ separation. However, I do[ no]t believe there is sufficient

evidence to support the intensity of the [C]hildren’s anger and

hatred toward [F]ather, and there is certainly not enough to

support removing Father from the[C]hildren’s lives. In my

opinion, continuing to limit Father’s time with the [C]hildren will

ultimately be further damaging to them.

Id. Dr. Mesiarik recommended the parties maintain shared legal custody and

work toward increasing Father’s physical custody, “ideally culminating [in] an

equally shared physical custody arrangement.” Id. However, given the high

level of conflict, she considered alternatives to her typical recommendation of

reunification counseling and recommended Turning Points or another intensive

reunification program. Id. Dr. Mesiarik acknowledged that such a program

- 19 -

J-A18019-25

was an aggressive treatment approach, but she did not believe there were

other viable alternatives given the multiple failed attempts to date. Id. She

further recommended co-parenting counseling and individual therapy for each

child and both parents. Id.

Following multiple continuances, the trial court scheduled the trial for

October 3-6, 2023. The first three days of trial proceeded with testimony from

Dr. Mesiarik, the GAL, and Father. The trial court certified Dr. Mesiarik as a

psychological expert in custody, reunification, family systems, and custody

evaluation. N.T., 10/3/2023, at 14. Dr. Mesiarik confirmed her opinion from

her custody evaluation report that the parties should have shared physical

custody of the Children. Id. at 26. She testified that if the situation was not

ameliorated or mitigated, the Children would suffer additional long-term

psychological and physiological harm, including an increased risk for stress,

anxiety, anger, depression, mood disorders, substance abuse, and physical

symptoms such as ulcers and stomach pains. Id. at 45-46, 67-70, 159-61.

Based on her evaluation, she concluded it was unlikely that Mother could

support the Children having a relationship with Father. Id. at 60.

On the fourth day of trial, October 6, 2023, the parties reached an

agreement to stay the proceedings and resolve the matter. On October 26,

2023, the parties submitted their stipulation, which memorialized the

agreement they placed on the record on October 6, 2023. The trial court

entered an order approving the stipulation on November 14, 2023. In

- 20 -

J-A18019-25

pertinent part, the parties agreed: (1) to appoint Stanley Clawar, Ph.D.,

C.C.S., as the reunification therapist “with the mutually stated goal of working

toward shared physical custody”; (2) to follow all recommendations of Dr.

Clawar, including those related to their behaviors, attitudes, speech, and

interventions; (3) Dr. Clawar shall provide a progress update within thirty

days; (4) if Dr. Clawar reported no progress within the first thirty days, Father

and the Children shall attend Turning Points; (5) the matter shall be re-listed

for a status review hearing every ninety days; and (6) absent compelling

circumstances, therapy sessions shall take precedence over all other activities,

including work, school, sports, and extracurriculars.

On January 3, 2024, Dr. Clawar issued his interim reunification progress

report. Dr. Clawar reported that the Children’s recollections of Father were

primarily negative, with assertions that he hit them, he hurt Mother during

the ice rink incident, he was not around much because of his work schedule,

and they feared him. N.T., 1/23/2024, Ex. C-1 (Dr. Clawar Report, 1/3/2024).

He opined that their concern for their own and Mother’s safety was “perceived

danger” and that “[n]o previous evaluation/therapist/GAL believes the

[C]hildren are or were in danger vis-à-vis [] Father.” Id. He noted the ice

rink incident was a “pivotal point” for the Children’s anger towards and

disengagement from Father, but concluded, regardless of what transpired, it

was “time to put this to rest and move on with healthier relationships.” Id.

- 21 -

J-A18019-25

With respect to Mother, Dr. Clawar reported that she remained adamant

that Father was abusive, scary, and aggressive, but “[n]o previous

professional corroborated this perspective.” Id. He stated that Mother’s

uncorroborated “theme of abuse” was now a central focus for the Children

even though “[t]here has been no objective evidence in any evaluation or

professional assessment validating Father as ‘unsafe’ or ‘abusive.’” Id. He

did not observe any meaningful change in Mother’s anger as previously

reported by numerous professionals, who “all clearly see []Mother as key in

an alienation process.” Id. He noted that Mother exonerates herself of

virtually any culpability and has limited self-awareness of “her own hostility

and defamatory attitudes and behaviors towards [] Father. Id. Dr. Clawar

observed that Mother has successfully guided every aspect of the Children’s

lives (including education, family, extended family, peer, medical,

extracurricular activities, personal habits, and communication styles) except

their affiliation with Father. Id.

Regarding Father, Dr. Clawar reported that he remained “appropriate in

concern, questions, and receptivity, even in the face of rejection, hostility,

silence, and character attacks” and continued to “make his regular phone calls

[to the Children] even though he [was] treated badly (silence, hang ups, and

negative dialogue).” Id. He noted that Father “spent years politely and

diligently doing outreach to [the C]hildren, but to no avail.” Id.

- 22 -

J-A18019-25

Dr. Clawar detailed fifteen social factors to explain the Children’s “resist

and refuse” attitudes and behaviors towards Father, which reflected a

circumstantial alienation.14 Id. Dr. Clawar gave the parents a reunification

cooperation list; Father agreed without qualification, Mother did not. 15 Dr.

Clawar opined that the parties had made de minimus progress, if any, and

there was a very low probability of further reunification efforts bringing

positive results. Id. He stated that his report was “past blame” and the

Children “have clearly been negatively impacted” by the custody dispute. Id.

He found it “important to note that the serial histories of past professionals”

“all came to similar observations and conclusions” with the Children on a path

to the “point of no return” with the “social death” of Father. Id.

The parties appeared for a status review hearing on January 23, 2024,

at which Dr. Clawar testified consistent with his report. On February 15, 2024,

the parties appeared for another review hearing. Dr. Clawar testified that

____________________________________________

14 The factors included: years of separation from Father; Mother’s support for

social distance; many failed professional attempts; child protective services

investigation; court hearings; developed lifestyle without Father; the

Children’s memory modifications of past events; loss of time with paternal

grandparents; the Children’s feelings of empowerment; the Children’s

development of learned scripts to cope; becoming part of an in-group family

culture; anxiety about contact with Father; fear of disruption of present, highly

schedule lifestyle; the Children’s development of protective roles; and being

stuck in rituals of negativity. Id.

15 For example, Mother refused to agree to “apologize for past negative and/or

hostile statements about the other parent to the [C]hildren” or to “understand

my custodial control is a main factor in [the C]hildren’s views and behaviors.”

Id.

- 23 -

J-A18019-25

even though the parties had since both agreed to new reunification guidelines,

he had lowered his percentage as to the likelihood of successful reunification.

In addition, the trial court conducted an in camera interview of the two

younger children, D.S. and O.S.

On February 28, 2024, the trial court entered an interim custody order,

finding that the parties had made no progress in reunification counseling with

Dr. Clawar and ordering implementation of the stipulated agreement.

Beginning March 1, 2024, and continuing for ninety days or until further court

order, the trial court ordered Father to have sole legal and physical custody of

the Children, and Father and the Children to attend Turning Points from March

2-5, 2024. The trial court appointed Dr. Clawar as its expert in family

reunification and ordered the parties to adhere to his forty-three-point

reunification guidelines. In addition, because Father was exercising his

ninety-day sole legal and physical custody at his parents’ home in Cape May,

New Jersey,16 the trial court ordered the Children to temporarily enroll in the

online education program through their school district. The trial court further

ordered Mother not to engage other mental health providers to evaluate or

treat the Children without Father’s consent, and not to engage a reunification

therapist, other than Dr. Clawar, without court approval.

____________________________________________

16 Father was unable to secure adequate housing in Delaware County,

Pennsylvania for him and the Children. The trial court noted that affordable

rental housing was in short supply within the Children’s school district and

ordered him to use his best effort to locate suitable housing within the district.

- 24 -

J-A18019-25

The trial court scheduled the custodial exchange for March 1, 2024, in

front of the Delaware County Courthouse. The Children refused to enter

Father’s car, resulting in Father’s filing of an emergency petition for contempt

and enforcement of the interim order. Father averred that (1) Mother and the

Children arrived for the custody exchange on March 1, 2024, along with

approximately fifteen others, presumably her supporters; (2) the situation

involved local police unsuccessfully attempting to assist the transfer of the

Children to Father; (3) the crowd surrounded Mother’s car and cheered as

Mother drove away with the Children; (4) Mother’s supporters uploaded a

video of the incident and posted a redacted version of the trial court’s interim

order, along with messages and comments to social media groups (such as

One Mom’s Battle and Kayden’s Korner) disparaging Father, the trial court,

Dr. Clawar, and Turning Points; (5) Mother’s supporters flooded Turning Points

with phone calls accusing its owner of abusing children; and (6) the oldest

child, A.S., posted a video of the exchange to her own social media page. See

Defendant’s Emergency Petition for Contempt and Enforcement of the Court’s

February 28, 2024 Order in Custody, 3/4/2024.

Mother responded by averring that (1) she appeared at the custody

exchange ready and willing to comply with the trial court’s order; (2) she did

not act to subvert or prevent the Children from exiting the car; (3) fewer of

her supporters attended than Father claimed; (4) she remained until police

advised her to leave; (5) her supporters lightly applauded when she left; (6)

- 25 -

J-A18019-25

she did not post anything on social media about the matter or make any false

allegations; (7) she did not know whether A.S. posted the video to her social

media page; (8) she drove the Children to Turning Points on March 2, 2024,

but it was closed; and (9) she did not act in any way to alienate the Children

from Father. See Answer to Defendant’s Emergency Petition for Contempt,

3/18/2024.

The trial court amended its interim order, directing the parties to appear

for a hearing on March 19, 2024, Mother to bring the Children inside the

courtroom for the custody exchange, and Mother to immediately remove

social media posts relating to this matter and to request that her supporters

refrain from publicizing or mischaracterizing any court records.

On March 19, 2024, with at least eight deputy sheriffs present, the

parties and their counsel, the Children, the GAL, extended family, and

Mother’s supporters appeared for the custody exchange. The Children refused

to go with Father. The trial court directed Mother to say goodbye to the

Children and leave the courtroom. After approximately ninety minutes, the

Children relented and went with Father, beginning his ninety days of sole legal

and physical custody.

The trial court conducted hearings in April and May 2024, at which the

trial court received testimony from Dr. Clawar, the GAL, and Father regarding

Father’s period of temporary sole custody. It also conducted remote, in

- 26 -

J-A18019-25

camera interviews of each child. Father’s sole custodial period ended on or

about June 19, 2024.

At the April 17, 2024 hearing, Dr. Clawar testified that the Children had

made “unusual progress socially, emotionally, [and] familiarly [sic]” but there

were “some outstanding issues, which would be expected because the

[C]hildren really hadn’t seen [F]ather in going on three years.” N.T.,

4/17/2024, at 10, 21. The Children all missed Mother but had started to show

some physical affection with Father, especially O.S., and the younger two,

D.S. and O.S., started calling him “dad.” Id. at 12-13, 17. The activity-based

reunification included sunset walks, playing games, doing arts and crafts,

receiving past birthday and holiday presents that Father had saved for the

Children over the years, playing basketball at the playground, practicing

dance, preparing and eating meals together, going to the beach, playing

football on the beach, walking on the boardwalk, playing at the arcade, and

shopping for clothes. Id. at 11-12, 15-16. The oldest child, A.S., was

unhappy with the custodial arrangement, disengaged at times, and felt the

need to oversee her siblings, but her relationship with Father did improve and

she started talking to him about her friends, boyfriend, sports, and travel. Id.

at 13-16, 19, 99. The Children’s academic performance declined with the

online schooling. Id. at 21.

Because reunification was progressing positively, attending Turning

Points was put on hold. Id. at 24. Dr. Clawar concluded that “see[ing] this

- 27 -

J-A18019-25

amount of change in 30 days” demonstrated to him that “these children are

not afraid of this father.” Id. at 28. However, this period involved multiple

incidents where police were called and/or a report was filed with child

protective services, which the trial court detailed in its findings of fact and

conclusions of law and is supported by the record.17 One incident involved the

Children attempting to run away at approximately 1:30 a.m. during the first

week; a window alarm alerted Father. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, 12/17/2024, at 30-34. Father tackled A.S. outside and held her down

until police arrived. Id. A.S. complained that she could not breathe and he

did not remove himself from her when she asked. Id. A second incident

occurred on the second day when A.S. refused to relinquish her phone charger

to Father. Id. at 34-35. A.S. reported that Father pushed her up against a

wall and held her arms to retrieve it from her. Id. Neither of these incidents

resulted in the filing of criminal charges and the investigations by child

protective services deemed the reports unfounded. See id. at 33, 35. A third

incident involved Father accidentally hitting A.S. in her eye with a plastic puck

while the two were playing hockey outside.18 Id. at 35-36. Father, a nurse,

immediately rendered aid and sought appropriate medical care. Id. This

incident did not result in criminal charges, and although the parties did not

____________________________________________

17 The record is unclear as to who called police or filed reports.

18 A.S.’s primary extracurricular activity was playing on an ice hockey team.

- 28 -

J-A18019-25

present evidence of the result of investigation by child protective services, the

trial court found “no fault with Father’s actions with respect to this incident.”

Id. at 36.

The GAL reported that in her interviews with each child during this

period, O.S. was “bubbly” and happy, D.S. covered his face, did not want to

talk to her, and started to cry, and A.S. was “animated” and seemed proud of

her black eye from the hockey accident with Father. N.T., 4/30/2024, at 47-

49. Each child said they missed Mother. Id. at 52. During the trial court’s

interview with each child, A.S. said that she was not “okay” and wanted to “go

home,” D.S. was doing “okay” and finding school confusing and difficult, and

O.S. said things were going “okay” with Father but she missed Mother and her

school friends. See id. at 90-126. D.S. and O.S. denied receiving any

discipline or punishment from Father. N.T., 4/30/2024, at 45, 120, 126.

On April 30, 2024, the trial court held a hearing to address numerous

outstanding petitions and motions filed after the trial court’s interim order and

received testimony from Mother relating to, among other things, her social

media use. On May 28, 2024, the parties appeared for a hearing, at which

Father and Dr. Clawar testified. Father described his efforts to improve the

Children’s school performance. N.T., 5/28/2024, at 21-26. Dr. Clawar opined

that attending Turning Points would not be successful because of outside

influence on the Children. Id. at 36. Dr. Clawar’s updated report on the

Children during the ninety-day period confirmed that they continued to engage

- 29 -

J-A18019-25

in similar activities with Father. Id. at 32. He testified that A.S. displayed a

greater reconnection with Father’s father and their family memories. Id. He

noted that during a week where A.S. did not have email access, she was the

most socially and emotionally comfortable she had been in her time there, but

when her email was restored, her negative behaviors returned. Id. at 34.

O.S. continued to be the most emotionally open and engaged with Father,

whereas D.S. was engaging but quieter and more withdrawn than before. Id.

at 40. Dr. Clawar testified that Father was making positive efforts for

reunification, including engaging in activities, tolerating the Children’s

negativity, trying not to escalate situations, giving the Children space,

connecting them back to their extended family, and entertaining their

memories and that he has “pretty much done everything that I think is

humanly possible.” Id. at 54-55, 88. He further discussed ways in which

Mother could be more cooperative with reunification, such as removing (or

attempting to have others remove) social media posts and sharing a new,

positive narrative about Father to the Children and their medical providers,

teachers, and coaches. Id. at 55-56, 65, 75.

On May 30, 2024, the trial court conducted a remote, in camera

interview of each child. A.S. reported that her eye was healing, she liked her

new individual therapist, she was not doing her school assignments, and that

things with Father were “not terrible.” N.T., 5/30/2024, at 13, 15-16, 18.

She agreed he welcomed her and was trying, and stated she liked

- 30 -

J-A18019-25

reconnecting with her cousins. Id. at 18, 20. She said she felt safe with her

grandparents and “kind of” safe with Father. Id. at 22. D.S. reported that

he was doing “okay” and getting along with Father and his extended family

but continued to struggle with school. Id. at 4-5. He denied that there was

anything bothering him or making him upset while at Father’s house, agreed

he was connecting more with Father than before, and the extended family

made him feel welcome. Id. at 9-11. O.S. reported that she was getting

along with her grandparents and “kind of” getting along with Father, saying

she did not feel safe with Father because he tackled A.S. when the Children

tried to run away. Id. at 28.

On May 29, 2024, the trial court issued an order to resume the trial,

scheduling it to begin June 24, 2024. In the interim, on June 14, 2024, the

trial court issued an amended order reinstating the July 2, 2021 temporary

custody order.

The trial proceeded as scheduled on June 24, 2024, at which Mother and

Father’s mother testified. Mother recounted an incident with Father that

occurred after the divorce filing but before he moved out of the marital

residence in June 2020. N.T., 6/24/2024, at 142-43. She testified that during

a verbal argument with Father, she locked herself in her bedroom because she

was scared and upset and called her sister “frantically upset.” Id. at 143.

- 31 -

J-A18019-25

She testified that Father was “enraged” and broke down the bedroom door. 19

Id. She testified that she quickly ran into the bathroom and locked the door.

Id.

Mother further testified about an incident during a family trip to Disney

World in September 2019, testifying that as they were going through security

to enter the park, Father “got into a heated yelling argument” with park

personnel over checking each compartment of his bag. Id. at 137-38. Mother

testified that the personnel threatened to arrest him, but the family, including

Father, was allowed entry into the park. Id. at 138.

The next day, the trial court continued the remaining scheduled trial

dates because Mother’s counsel experienced a medical issue. On July 5, 2024,

Mother sought a continuance because of witness unavailability and her

counsel’s teaching duties. The trial court denied the requested continuance

and trial resumed on July 11, 2024, at which Mother, Father, and the GAL

testified. The GAL reported that

[w]hile the [C]hildren were with [Father], they expressed a desire

to return home but did not state that they were afraid of [Father].

The main concern during [the GAL’s] April meeting [with the

Children] was the[ir] lack of control [over the custody situation]

and their conception that the situation was unfair to [Mother].

Now that the [C]hildren have returned to [Mother,] they are once

again stating that they are afraid of [Father].

____________________________________________

19 Father later attempted to explain his behavior, testifying that he was

worried that Mother might hang herself and “panicked” and “tried to get in

that door.” N.T., 7/11/2024, at 84-85.

- 32 -

J-A18019-25

I do not believe any half measures will work in this case as

[M]other shows no signs of relenting in her fight to end all

visitation for [F]ather and to use the [C]hildren to achieve that

end.

N.T., 7/11/2024, Ex. D-17 (GAL Report, July 2024). The GAL stressed that

every single provider has agreed that Mother is sabotaging any

possibility of forward motion with the [C]hildren and with Father,

and that the [C]hildren are being fed information that’s age

inappropriate as well as just plain inappropriate. And that is

fostering this feeling that they have. And I do think that

unfortunately at this point, their feelings are somewhat genuine

because it’s been put in their heads so much that Father is

someone to be afraid of.

Id. at 213. The GAL continued to have no concerns about the Children’s

health and safety while in Father’s care. Id. at 236. Dr. Clawar echoed this

position during his expert testimony. See id. at 241-45.

On July 16, 2024, Mother filed a motion seeking the trial court’s recusal,

which it denied. The trial proceeded again on July 17, 2024, at which Mother’s

friend, Father, and Dr. Clawar testified. Mother’s friend, Mark Myers, testified

about an incident with Father in 2017 that happened on a date night with his

wife, Mother, and Father. N.T., 7/17/2024, at 22. At a restaurant, Mr. Myers

testified that Father “seemed to be talking about a lot of issues” that “kind of

appalled” the rest of the group and made them uncomfortable. 20 Id. at 23.

After dinner, he testified that both couples went to the Myers’ home, where

Father “chatt[ed]” with him about a pistol that he carried on his ankle. Id.

____________________________________________

20 Mr. Myers did not describe the issues.

- 33 -

J-A18019-25

He testified that when the women left to go upstairs to look at a newly

remodeled bathroom, he “joked” that they were just going upstairs to talk

about the men. Id. Mr. Myers testified that Father’s face turned red and he

“started screaming about [Mother] talking about him.” Id. at 24. Mr. Myers

testified that he was not expecting that reaction and concerned for their

safety, so he ended the evening and Mother and Father left without issue. Id.

at 24-25. Mr. Myers testified that he discussed the incident with his wife

immediately after and they decided to not allow their child to go to Mother

and Father’s house without Mother present. Id. at 25.

The trial court interviewed the Children in camera on July 26, 2024, and

the parties made their closing arguments on September 6, 2024.

On December 17, 2024, the trial court entered its final custody order

and issued a sixty-eight-page findings of fact and conclusions of law in support

thereof.21 The trial court awarded Mother and Father shared legal custody

and Father partial physical custody on a graduated schedule. The trial court

detailed Father’s partial physical custody in four stages over the course of

nearly eight months, with increased custodial time at each successive stage.

In the first stage, the trial court awarded Father time with A.S. every

Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and a weekly Friday dinner visit with

____________________________________________

21 On September 17, 2024, the trial court issued an order extending its time

to submit its final order and findings of fact and conclusions of law and stated

the delay was the result of the complexity of this matter and the trial court’s

workload.

- 34 -

J-A18019-25

the Children from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at a restaurant of his choice. In the

second stage, Father’s custodial time increased to include an overnight visit

with the Children, provided he has his own residence with a separate bed for

each child. In this stage, the trial court awarded Father custodial time every

other Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and continuation of

the weekly Friday dinner visit. In the third stage, Father’s custodial time with

the Children increased to every other Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at

6:00 p.m. and a dinner visit every other Wednesday of his non-custodial

weekend from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In the final stage, which coincided with

the start of the school year, Father’s custodial time increased to every other

Thursday at 6:00 p.m. to Monday morning at school drop-off, provided Father

had his own residence with three bedrooms within a twenty-minute drive to

the Children’s schools, and a dinner visit every other Wednesday of his non-

custodial weekend from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The trial court also detailed

the parties’ custodial time during summers, holidays, and vacations.

Among other things, the trial court prohibited the parties from

disparaging each other within earshot of the Children or by public display;

discussing their marriage history and custody and divorce litigation with the

Children, except if invited by their mental health provider or to explain that

they must comply with the final custody order; and posting any information

relating to the custody litigation on social media. Finding the mental health

difficulties of the two younger children, D.S. and O.S., attributable to this

- 35 -

J-A18019-25

prolonged dispute and Mother’s alienating behaviors, the trial court ordered

them to receive mental health treatment before Father could exercise his

physical custody of them. Should a child fail to enter Father’s vehicle for a

custody exchange, the trial court ordered that child to be precluded from

participating in any extracurricular or social activities for that day. Based on

Mother’s ability to secure the Children’s obedience and cooperation in all other

aspects of their lives, the trial court required her to ensure the Children enter

Father’s vehicle or she would be subject to contempt proceedings.

In its analysis, the trial court began by recognizing that “[i]n a custody

case, the [trial c]ourt concerns itself with the best interests of the child.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024, at 24. It observed that

the law specifies the factors it must consider in determining their best

interests, “giving substantial weighted consideration” to the factors specified

under paragraphs (1), (2), (2.1), and (2.2) which affect the safety of the child.

Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)). 22 The trial court

____________________________________________

22 Section 5328(a) provides that “[i]n ordering any form of custody, the court

shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant

factors, giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors specified

under paragraphs (1), (2), (2.1) and (2.2) which affect the safety of the

child[.]” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). At the time of the proceedings below, the

factors included:

(1) Which party is more likely to ensure the safety of the child.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member

of the party’s household, which may include past or current

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 36 -

J-A18019-25

____________________________________________

protection from abuse or sexual violence protection orders where

there has been a finding of abuse.

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a) (relating to

consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective

services).

(2.2) Violent or assaultive behavior committed by a party.

(2.3) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent

and continuing contact between the child and another party if

contact is consistent with the safety needs of the child.

(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, except if changes are necessary to

protect the safety of the child or a party.

(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

developmental stage, maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a party to turn the child against the other

party, except in cases of abuse where reasonable safety measures

are necessary to protect the safety of the child. A party’s

reasonable concerns for the safety of the child and the party’s

reasonable efforts to protect the child shall not be considered

attempts to turn the child against the other party. A child’s

deficient or negative relationship with a party shall not be

presumed to be caused by the other party.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for

the child’s emotional needs.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 37 -

J-A18019-25

elaborated as to the weight it assigned to each factor and in whose favor it

weighed. The trial court found the majority of factors to be neutral. 23 It found

factors (3), (5), and (12) favored Mother while factors (1), (7), (8), and (13)

favored Father and factor (2.3) strongly favored Father. Id. at 24-65.

This timely-filed appeal followed. Mother raises the following issues for

our review:

____________________________________________

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical,

emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the

child.

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

(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 or self 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.

Id. (effective August 13, 2024 to August 28, 2025).

23 The trial court found factors (2), (2.1), (2.2), (4), (6), (10), (11), (14), and

(15) to be neutral. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024, at

24-65. It found factor (9) to be negative for both Mother and Father. Id. at

59.

- 38 -

J-A18019-25

1. Did the trial court make an error of law and abuse its

discretion by entering an order for custody where the [trial]

court’s decision is manifestly unreasonable, unsupported by

the record, and influenced by bias?

2. Did the trial court make an error o[f] law and abuse its

discretion by entering a custody order when [the trial]

court’s decision misapplied the law by not factoring in and

following Kayden’s Law, 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 5328[24]?

Mother’s Brief at 17.

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type

and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings

of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of

record, as our role does not include making independent factual

determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility

and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial

judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand.

However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or

inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether

the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the

evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial

court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in

light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.

Wilson v. Smyers, 284 A.3d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and

quotation marks omitted).

In her first issue, Mother raises a number of issues pertaining to the trial

court’s custody order and alleged bias in rendering its decision. She claims

____________________________________________

24 In 2024, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the custody factors

“pursuant to Act of April 15, 2024, P.L. 24, No. 8 (known as ‘Kayden’s Law’)[.]”

Velasquez v. Miranda, 321 A.3d 876, 886 n.6 (Pa. 2024). “Kayden’s Law

expand[ed] the factors to be considered in the custody court’s best interest

analysis” and “requires the court to give ‘substantial weighted consideration’

to, inter alia, the ‘safety of the child[.]’” Id. (citation omitted). The

amendments became effective on August 13, 2024. Because the trial court

here entered the final custody order in December 2024, Kayden’s Law applies.

- 39 -

J-A18019-25

bias and the appearance of impropriety by the trial court with its final custody

order, behavior toward Mother and her counsel, and “refusal to uphold the law

when the law favored Mother,” and hold a hearing on Mother’s recusal motion.

Id. at 42. She asserts that the trial court should have recused itself based on

statements it made to her counsel about requiring formality in emails 25 and

failing to file motions with verifications; 26 rushing the custody trial to finish

____________________________________________

25 It is unclear from the record exactly what transpired regarding counsel’s

emails and Mother’s brief merely cites to her motion to recuse (which does

not cite to the record). See Mother’s Brief at 47. From what we can discern,

it appears the trial court took issue with Mother’s counsel signing his emails

with only his first name above the signature line. Before the start of trial on

July 17 2024, the trial court stated:

I have reviewed [Mother’s] motion to recuse, and I want to say

that apparently, I was in error in correcting [Mother’s counsel] in

signing his emails as Joe. Apparently, [Father’s counsel] does the

same thing. I do not appreciate this level of informality with my

assistance [sic]. I find it inappropriate. I believe I went on and

on and on about us not all being friends. The professional distance

between the attorneys and my secretaries is important to

maintain, to preserve the impartiality and fairness of the Court.

So, [Mother’s counsel], when I corrected you, I apologized. I don’t

see those emails and if it is going on with respect to other

attorneys who practice in front of me, I will be drafting, or my

clerk will be drafting – my clerk over there will be drafting a form

email to ask attorneys not to address the Court staff so informally.

N.T., 7/17/2024, at 4-5. Relatedly, we note with disapproval that in her brief,

Mother mischaracterized the trial court’s statements by failing to quote them

in their entirety. See Mother’s Brief at 48.

26 During Father’s counsel’s examination of Mother at the April 30, 2024

hearing about what she pled in her emergency petition for custody, the trial

court remarked, “There’s no verification attached to that petition in violation

of procedural rules,” and explained the typical verification process. N.T.,

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 40 -

J-A18019-25

before the effective date of Kayden’s Law and refusing to grant a two-hour

continuance for Mother’s counsel’s teaching duties; 27 and chastising and

____________________________________________

4/30/2024, at 83-84. Later in the proceedings, the trial court questioned

Mother’s counsel as to why the petition did not contain a verification, to which

he responded that he believed it was required for pleadings but not motions.

Id. at 110. Father’s counsel recounted that earlier in the litigation, Mother’s

prior counsel cited him for failing to include a verification for Father’s

emergency petition for custody, which he rectified immediately. Id. The trial

court took the matter under advisement. Id. Subsequently, it denied

Mother’s emergency petition except as to the Children’s poor performance in

their online school. See Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiff’s

Emergency Petition for Custody and Denial of Defendant’s Counterclaim

Request for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions, 5/14/2024, ¶ 65.

27 During the April 30, 2024 hearing on several of the parties’ motions and

petitions, the trial court remarked that Mother’s emergency petition for

custody referenced Kayden’s Law, which was not then in effect. N.T.,

4/30/2024, at 39. It noted the law’s effective date in August 2024 and stated

that it may look to the law for guidance as appropriate. Id. During the trial

on June 24, 2024, the trial court commented that it was “going to try to get

this [final custody decision] out before” the effective date of Kayden’s Law.

N.T., 6/24/2024, at 38. In addressing Mother’s recusal motion, the trial court

stated:

[T]he [trial c]ourt finds that there is no basis of fact or law that

would warrant my recusal at this time. That being said, I do want

to note that this case has been rife with zealous advocacy both

[by Mother’s prior and current counsel.] I encourage and invite

zealous advocacy and I congratulate you both for hanging in here.

This has been a very, very difficult case. However, I do want to

just emphasize that my push to finish this case has to do with the

number of years that it’s been pending. I do believe that justice

delayed is justice denied, and that this case needs to come to a

conclusion so that the parties can move on.

N.T., 7/17/2024, at 5-6. As discussed below, the trial court entered its final

order after Kayden’s Law took effect and it undertook a thorough analysis of

the custody factors, including those newly enacted under Kayden’s Law.

- 41 -

J-A18019-25

threatening to report her counsel for failing to designate a successor attorney

in the event of his death or disability.28 Id. at 47.

Mother also faults the trial court in finding that Mother alienated the

Children. Id. at 44. She acknowledges the trial court’s alienation finding was

supported by Dr. Mesiarik’s custody evaluation report and testimony but

argues that the trial court should not have credited it. See id. at 44-45.

Mother contends that even though the trial court held Father responsible for

the Children’s safety during his ninety-day custodial period, Father failed to

do so. Id. at 45. She points to Father’s restraint of A.S. when the Children

attempted to run away, the incident with the phone chargers, and A.S.’s eye

injury while playing hockey with Father. Id. at 45. Further, Mother claims

that the trial court failed to hold Father accountable in ensuring the Children’s

health and education during his custodial time. Id. at 46-47.

Mother contends that the final custody order was “impossible to follow”

because the stated dates for Father’s stages of visitation had already passed

____________________________________________

28Regarding the designation of a successor attorney, the record is again

unclear but it appears to stem from Mother’s counsel’s earlier failure to appear

because of a medical issue. The trial court stated:

And I did speak to [Mother’s counsel] about his lack of

communication with the [trial c]ourt, not only on one

occasion, but on two occasions. But that being said and

cited for comment to [] disciplinary rules of professional

conduct 1.3, paragraph five, and expected that it would not

– that situation would not recur.

N.T., 7/17/2024, at 5; see also Rules of Professional Conduct § 1.3 Comment

(5).

- 42 -

J-A18019-25

and depended on whether he had suitable housing. Id. at 48. She asserts

that it improperly set “hard dates” for increased visitation instead of allowing

the Children’s therapist to make that determination and it named a therapist

without determining whether the Children’s insurance would be accepted. Id.

In addition, Mother takes issue with the trial court’s findings and

credibility determinations regarding Father’s anger and outbursts relating to

the incidents involving Father at Disney World, kicking down the bedroom door

in the marital residence, and the social outing with Mother, Father, Mr. Myers

and his wife. See id. at 49-52. In her view, the trial court should have

credited this testimony that was favorable to her. See id.

In our thorough review of the voluminous record, including more than

2,300 pages of notes of testimony from the extensive hearings in this matter,

we are unable to locate any record support whatsoever to lend credence to

Mother’s claim of trial court bias or the appearance of impropriety. To the

contrary, the record reveals that throughout the life of this case, the trial court

was exceedingly prepared, asked relevant questions, repeatedly reiterated

that it was focused upon the Children’s best interests, treated the parties and

their counsel fairly and respectfully, and maintained order and decorum even

in the face of direct and personal social media attacks concerning its

performance and decisions in this case.

The trial court not only presided over nine days of trial but also ruled on

countless petitions and motions, including emergency filings, which regularly

- 43 -

J-A18019-25

required additional hearings. The trial court interacted with the parties

frequently, as reflected by the multiple temporary and interim custody orders

it entered throughout the proceedings. There can be no doubt that the trial

court was extremely familiar with the parties, the Children, the witnesses, and

the experts who offered testimony and reports to inform the trial court in

determining the custodial arrangement that is in the Children’s best interests.

That Mother is dissatisfied with the trial court’s final order does not equate to

trial court bias or the appearance of impropriety. See Lewis v. Lewis, 234

A.3d 706, 722 (Pa. Super. 2020) (stating that “simply because a judge rules

against a party does not establish bias on the part of the judge against that

party”) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Rather, as our very

lengthy recitation of the facts of record in this matter reflects, the trial court’s

findings are supported by competent evidence of record and its conclusions

are reasonable as shown by record evidence. See Wilson, 284 A.3d at 515.

Further, we must defer to the trial court’s determinations as to the credibility

of the witnesses and evidence presented and the weight to be afforded thereto

as it viewed and assessed the parties and witnesses firsthand over the span

of several years. See id. Mother’s first issue merits no relief.

In her second issue, Mother contends that the trial court “misapplied the

law by not factoring in and following Kayden’s Law.” Mother’s Brief at 53.

She claims that the trial court “downplayed” two incidents involving Father,

which she argues recklessly caused injury to another: A.S.’s eye injury while

- 44 -

J-A18019-25

playing hockey with Father and Father striking Mother in the face after she

spat on him at the ice rink. Id. at 55. She also asserts that Father’s filing of

multiple emergency petitions and contempt motions was litigation abuse,

which she argues also falls under Kayden’s Law. Id. at 55-56.

Mother’s claim is rooted in her contention that the Children are unsafe

with Father. Over the span of more than forty pages, the trial court carefully,

thoroughly, and methodically analyzed each of the subsection 5328(a) factors,

including giving substantial weighted consideration to the Kayden’s Law

factors specified under paragraphs (1), (2), (2.1), and (2.2), to arrive at its

legal conclusions. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024,

at 23-65. With respect to A.S.’s eye injury, the trial court analyzed it under

factor (1) as follows:

[A]nother Child[L]ine report was filed as a result of an injury

suffered by A.S. when she and Father were playing hockey, also

at Cape May…. They were playing with a hard plastic puck.

[Father’s mother] reported that they were playing at the

playground. Each was taking a turn hitting the puck into the net.

A.S. was on the side of the net and moved into Father’s line of

fire. [The puck Father shot] hit her near her eye.

Immediately, she was bleeding and screaming. Father, a

nurse, rendered aid. He then brought her to the nearest urgent

care center where [healthcare providers] administered treatment

and stitched the wound. Father and A.S. then were directed to

the emergency room at Cape May Regional Hospital for a CT scan

and any other necessary studies. Father later took A.S. to a

plastic surgeon and an ophthalmologist.

When the [trial c]ourt interviewed A.S. on May 30, 2024, via

Microsoft Teams, she reported that her eye failed to hurt her at

all even though the doctors determined that she suffered an

orbital fracture. The scar looked like it was healing and A.S. was

- 45 -

J-A18019-25

smiling – the [trial c]ourt remarked that it had never seen her

smile like that. She seemed to harbor no ill will towards Father

due to the accident.

About two months later, on July 26, 2024, when the [trial

c]ourt interviewed A.S. in person, the scar was barely visible

except that part of her eyebrow was missing. A.S. indicated that

it would grow back. She seem[ed] to feel that this injury was

almost a badge of honor in hockey.

At the time that the [trial c]ourt concluded the trial, no

evidence was presented regarding the final outcome of that []

Child[L]ine [r]eport. However, it is difficult to imagine that child

protective services would deem this report founded. Father was

playing hockey with A.S., a sport that she clearly loves. A.S.

moved so that Father accidentally hit her in the eye. He rendered

aid immediately and took her to multiple medical facilities to

ensure that her medical needs were met. Her appearance a short

time after the incident on April 30, 2024[,] and lack of concern

about the accident demonstrates that she considered this an

accident as well.

Regarding whether Father was negligent, the [trial c]ourt

finds that this accident could have happened to any parent playing

a sport with a ball or puck that could injure a child: basketball,

hardball baseball, tennis or lacrosse. The evidence of record

clearly demonstrates that this was an accident and Father was not

negligent. In addition, the [trial c]ourt finds that Father ensured

that A.S. received appropriate emergency and follow-up care.

Accordingly, the [trial c]ourt finds no fault with Father’s actions

with respect to this incident.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 12/17/2024, at 35-36. The trial court

continued its factor (1) analysis, concluding that it

has observed Father’s demeanor for the past three years during

these arduous and difficult proceedings. Mother and witnesses

have pursued Child[L]ine reports and allegations of violence that

[] Father has emphatically denied. … Mother, Maternal

Grandmother[,] and others have subjected Father to social media

attacks. The trial alone lasted nine days as well as additional court

proceedings lasting hours.

- 46 -

J-A18019-25

Despite these attacks outside of [the trial c]ourt as well as

during these proceedings, the [trial c]ourt never witnessed a

glimmer of anger on Father’s part. Rather, on multiple occasions,

the [trial c]ourt has seen Father’s tears and sadness at the loss of

his children. The [trial c]ourt’s observations of Father’s demeanor

supports the [trial c]ourt’s conclusion that Mother’s allegations [of

abuse by Father] lack merit.

In conclusion, the [trial c]ourt finds that Mother’s allegations

that the [C]hildren are not safe in Father’s care are not supported

by the record. None of these incidents of alleged abuse

demonstrate Father’s manifesting the “rage” that she claims

endangers her and [the C]hildren. Moreover, the series of

Child[L]ine [r]eport[s,] save the [lack of record evidence of] the

hockey incident [report’s outcome,] were deemed unfounded. No

credible evidence of abuse has been presented. Accordingly, the

[trial c]ourt concludes that Mother’s allegations that Father

abused the [C]hildren are not supported by the record.

Id. at 36-37.

Regarding the May 2021 ice rink incident, the trial court analyzed it

under factor (2) as follows:

[Mother] has maintained throughout this litigation that

Father committed an act of domestic abuse against her in May

2021, in front of the [C]hildren, at IceWorks in Ashton[,

Pennsylvania]. The credible evidence of record demonstrates that

the following occurred.

On Sunday, on or about May 23, 2021, Father was enjoying

his custodial time with the [C]hildren. He was at D.S.’s baseball

game with [his other children]. After the game, he told Mother

that D.S. was faint and needed some water.

Father credibly testified that Mother started calling Father a

“scumbag,” and chastised him for “doing what he did,” apparently

referring to having introduced the [C]hildren to his girlfriend. She

continued to yell at him.

He was able to hustle the [C]hildren into the car but O.S.

still had ice hockey practice. As the locker rooms [were] still

closed due to the Covid[-]19 pandemic, he dressed O.S. in the car

- 47 -

J-A18019-25

and she went on the ice. Mother was on one side of the bleachers

while Father located himself on the opposite end.

Although there was plenty of room in the bleachers near

Father and near Mother, Maternal Grandmother sat behind Father

and put her feet on his bleachers on Father’s back. Nevertheless,

he ignored her.

Subsequently, O.S. completed her hockey session. Father

credibly testified that Mother confronted him again, calling him a

“scumbag” and yelling “you’re not allowed to do what you did.”

He hastened to exit the hockey rink out to the car with O.S. in his

arms. He buckled D.S., then [nine] years old, into his booster

seat and O.S. into her car seat. A.S. was not yet secured. The

two younger children, secured in their safety seats, had no view

of the back of the car. The eldest[, A.S.,] may have been able to

see.

When the [C]hildren were seated in the car and their

belongings loaded into his truck, [Father] turned to confront

Mother and recounted what he said to her:

[‘Y]ou are the one being a scumbag[’]. And then she

leans back and spits in my face. And out of reaction,

I pushed her with my left hand. And then it went –

then [Mother] yelled, then it was – then [A.S.] got out

of the car, I grabbed [A.S.] under my right arm[…].

[N.T.,] 7/11/[20]24, at 95.

Thus, Mother escalated the verbal altercation by spitting in

Father’s face. However, the parties’ testimony conflicts at this

point. While Father claims he pushed her, Mother claims that

Father punched her.

Whether he punched her or pushed her in the face, Father’s

actions injured her; her nose started to bleed and her eye started

to blacken.

Police were summoned. Mother or Maternal Grandmother

shouted that Father had firearms but he showed the police that

he was unarmed. The police brought the [C]hildren to Mother to

show the[m] that she was fine. Father allowed the [C]hildren to

remain with Mother for a long time.

- 48 -

J-A18019-25

Mother called her best friend, P.M., who enlisted her

husband, M.M.[,] to take her to the hospital. M.M. testified that

he took Mother to Riddle Hospital[,] where she received a CAT

scan. Mother complained of dizziness and a headache. However,

the record fails to reveal that she sought additional treatment.

Both Mother and Father filed [PFA p]etitions: Mother on May

25, 2021, CV 2021-080811, and Father, on May 27, 2021, CV

2021-080835. On June 3, 2021, the parties entered into a six[-

]month continuance as a cooling off period. Both petitions were

dismissed on December 2, 2021.

Mother argues that the [trial c]ourt should strongly consider

Father’s physical aggression and weigh it heavily against him. She

claims that Father seriously hurt her and therefore any physical

custody should be supervised.

At the outset, reviewing both part[ies]’ testimonies, the

[trial c]ourt was struck by Mother’s focus on Father’s actions, and

her failure to mention that she was not blameless: she had incited

his response by spitting in his face.

Moreover, in May 2021, many people still wore face masks

to guard against Covid-19 infections. The United States remained

in the throes of a Covid[-]19 pandemic. Mitigation [sic] had only

begun to be mitigated due to vaccine distribution. Therefore,

spitting in someone’s face could be considered a source of

infection for Covid[-]19 and still a health risk. [29]

____________________________________________

29 In her reply brief, Mother argues for the first time that the trial court

“elevated” facts by relying on a news report outside the record to support its

finding that in May 2021, spitting in someone’s face could be considered a

source of infection for Covid-19 and a health risk. Mother’s Reply Brief at 3.

As our Supreme Court has explained:

The opportunity for, and the extent of, a reply brief is limited. The

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure make clear that an

“appellant may file a brief in reply to matters raised by [the]

appellee’s brief not previously raised in appellant’s brief.”

Pa.R.A.P. 2113(a). Thus, an appellant is prohibited from raising

new issues in a reply brief. Moreover, a reply brief cannot be a

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 49 -

J-A18019-25

Both parties ardently believe their account and steadfastly

defend it. It remains difficult to resolve the conflict of fact as to

whether Father hit her with a closed fist or an open hand.

However, no dispute exists as to Mother’s injuries – she suffered

a black eye and a nose bleed.

Based on the evidence of record and reasonable inferences

thereon, nevertheless, the [trial c]ourt finds by a preponderance

of the evidence that Father failed to intentionally hurt Mother for

the following reasons.

At the time of the May 2021 incident, Father testified that

he weighed 220 pounds and [was] about 5’8” tall. He was a

former weight lifter and trainer. A reasonable inference from the

record is that Father was and remains quite strong.

Consequently, had he intended to hurt [Mother], her injuries

would have been much greater: perhaps a face fracture. She

might have ended up on the pavement with a head injury. None

of those injuries occurred. Accordingly, it is unlikely that he

pushed or hit her with an intention to inflict harm. Instead, it is

likely that upon [Mother’s] spitting in his face, he was acting

defensively to avoid further saliva contact.

Moreover, Mother never accepted any blame in commencing

the course of events that resulted in the parties’ mutual assault or

striking the first blow by spitting in Father’s face. At D.S.’s

baseball game, Mother relentlessly harangued Father about his

girlfriend and introducing his girlfriend to the [C]hildren. Father

is not blameless – perhaps he should not have introduced the

[C]hildren to his girlfriend. However, Mother was also wrong by

litigating this issue in front of the [C]hildren’s sports community,

____________________________________________

vehicle to argue issues raised but inadequately developed in

appellant’s original brief. When an appellant uses a reply brief to

raise new issues or remedy deficient discussions in an initial brief,

the appellate court may suppress the non-complying portions.

Riverview Carpet & Flooring, Inc. v. Presbyterian SeniorCare, 299 A.3d

937, 969 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d

214, 218 n.8 (Pa. 1999)). We therefore do not consider this new claim on

appeal.

- 50 -

J-A18019-25

the [C]hildren’s team members, and most importantly, [the

C]hildren. Thus, neither party behaved correctly here.

Moreover, Father should have walked [away] from Mother’s

verbal assaults and taken the [C]hildren – it was his period of

physical custody. By engaging her, he ran the risk of escalating

Mother’s verbal altercation. Indeed, Mother likely was injured

because any physical contact by Father risked injury due to his

much greater weight and height. In sum, both [Mother and

Father] behaved abominably in front of their [C]hildren.

Based on this analysis, the [trial c]ourt concludes this factor

is neutral.

Id. at 47-51 (footnotes and some citations omitted).

Accordingly, Mother’s contention that the trial court failed to analyze the

custody factors under Kayden’s Law is without merit. In addition, as stated

above, we must defer to the trial court’s credibility and weight determinations.

See Wilson, 284 A.3d at 515. We further find no support in the record for

Mother’s allegation that Father’s filings throughout the proceedings below rose

to the level of litigation abuse. The record reflects that Father appropriately

sought to protect and enforce his custodial time with the Children. We note

that Mother, too, has filed numerous petitions and motions in this matter.

Accordingly, Mother’s second issue is without merit.

Upon our thorough review of the extensive record in this case, we

conclude that the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence of

record.

Order affirmed.

- 51 -

J-A18019-25

Date: 10/10/2025

- 52 -