J-A29042-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
Z.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
J.Z., :
:
Appellee :
: No. 779 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered April 16, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Family Court, at No(s): No. FD 08-008538-004
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2014
Z.W. (Mother) appeals from the trial court order granting J.Z. (Father)
shared legal and physical custody of the parties’ nine-year-old son, D.Z. We
affirm.
This contentious custody litigation began in 2009. The facts of this
case are well-known to the parties and, in light of our disposition, we will not
recite them in full here. Of note to this particular appeal, the record indicates
that, in 2012, Father petitioned to modify the existing custody order, which
had been in place since 2009. The matter proceeded to trial, following which
the trial court entered an order modifying the physical custody arrangement
to a week-on-week-off schedule. The new order granted Father roughly four
extra days of custody per month. Additionally, the court’s order created a
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29042-14
custody schedule for the summers of 2014 and 2015. Finally, the trial court
kept the shared legal custody arrangement from the 2009 order.
Mother timely filed a notice of appeal. She presents the following
questions for our review.
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion in reducing
physical custody time of the child with [Mother], contrary to the
child’s best interest, contrary to the evidence presented
regarding the statutory factors to be considered in custody, and
without support by the weight of the evidence presented at trial?
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion in failing to
provide [Mother] with legal custody to address matters such as
doctor’s visits, travel and passport matters, as well as
extracurricular activities, contrary to the child’s best interest,
contrary to the evidence presented regarding the statutory
factors to be considered in custody, and without support by the
weight of the evidence presented at trial?
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion in setting a
summer schedule which could result in too great a period of
physical custody of the child apart from the [Mother], contrary to
the child’s best interest, contrary to the evidence presented
regarding the statutory factors to be considered in custody, and
without support by the weight of the evidence presented at trial?
Mother’s Brief at 24 (trial court answers omitted).
Following our review of the certified record, the briefs for the parties,
and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Kathryn
M. Hens-Greco thoroughly addresses and correctly disposes of Mother’s
issues and supporting arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s
opinion of June 12, 2014 as our own, and affirm the court’s disposition of
Mother’s issues on the basis of that opinion. The parties shall attach a copy
-2-
J-A29042-14
of the trial court’s June 12, 2104 opinion to this memorandum in the event
of further proceedings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/13/2014
-3-
Circulated 10/30/2014 02:26 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 02:26 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 02:26 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 02:26 PM
l 1 /3 /2 14 02:26 PM
Circulated 10/30/2014 02:26 PM