# K.D. v. E.D. > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · August 23, 2018 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4306801 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** August 23, 2018 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4306801 ## Opinion text J-A16004-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 K.D., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. E.D., Appellant No. 485 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered January 10, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s): 336-2015 DR BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 23, 2018 E.D. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order entered on January 10, 2018, that granted K.D.’s (Mother) exceptions to a master’s report and recommendation, resulting in the denial of Father’s petition requesting supervised visitation with the two youngest of Mother’s and Father’s four children. Following our review, we affirm. The scope and standard of review in custody matters is as follows: [T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it. ... However, this broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination. ... Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those J-A16004-18 conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion. R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Super. 2001)). Moreover, [O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses. The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration of the best interest of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion. R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations omitted). The test is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s conclusions. Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa. Super. 2006). A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014). Father raises the following two issues for our review: I. Did the [h]onorable [t]rial [c]ourt err as a matter of law by substituting its own credibility determinations for those of the Master? II. Did the [h]onorable [t]rial [c]ourt misapply the facts and err as a matter of law in denying [F]ather[’]s request for periods of therapeutic supervised visitation with two of his four children and in finding that [F]ather poses a grave threat when the facts establish that the children did not suffer sexual physical abuse or emotional abuse at the hands of [F]ather? Father’s brief at 3. -2- J-A16004-18 Here, in its opinion, the trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case and gave an extensive discussion of all the testimony provided by the various witnesses, especially the testimony of the professionals, at the hearings held before the master. Furthermore, citing Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. Super. 2003), the trial court recognized that “[t]he Report and Recommendation from a master is only advisory, but it must ‘be given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses, because the master ha[d] the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and demeanor the parties.’” Additionally, the court noted that Father’s arguments appear to request that this Court re- find facts and re-weigh the evidence. However, our standard of review requires that we “accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations.” C.R.F., III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012). Rather, 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.” E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa. Super. 2011). We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Raymond L. Hamill of the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, dated January 11, 2018. We conclude that Judge Hamill’s extensive opinion -3- J-A16004-18 correctly disposes of the issues presented by Father in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the court’s opinion as our own and affirm the custody order on that basis. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/23/18 -4- Circulated 08/07/2018 02:20 PM ..... IN THE COURT OF COMMON 'F'LEA3 CF 'i'HE 2im JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA -----' COUNTY OF WAYNE 1(:v. Plaintiff vs. ' Defendant NO. 336-DR-2015 OPlNION and ORDER Presently before this Court are Plaintiff's and Defendant's Exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Custody Master dated June 9, 2017. In response to the Master's Report, J .severe .. as ,-.to.ad.