J-A33017-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
E.R., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
v. :
:
:
J.N.B. : No. 168 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered December 4, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Civil Division, at No(s): 2011-FC-0511
BEFORE: LAZARUS, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2015
E.R. (Father) appeals from the custody order entered December 4,
2013 wherein the trial court granted J.N.B. (Mother) primary physical
custody of the parties’ child, X.R. (Child) and limited Father’s custody to
periods of supervised visitation. In addition, Father challenges the propriety
of the trial court’s order precluding Joseph P. Maher, Esq. from representing
Father.
A review of the certified record indicates that we are missing a number
of items listed on the official court docket, beginning with the original
custody complaint filed April 12, 2011 (labeled in the docket as “1”) through
the December 11, 2013 custody scheduling order (labeled in the docket as
“83”). This list includes the transcript of the September 6, 2013 hearing
that forms the basis of Father’s first question on appeal. The transcript was
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A33017-14
requested by Father, and appears on the docket, but is absent from the
certified record. We are unable to complete a meaningful review of Father’s
appellate issues without these items. According, we remand for perfection
of the certified record.
Additionally, since the enactment of the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, this
Court has repeatedly held that the Act requires an evaluation of all sixteen
factors in every case. This is especially true where, as here, a party is
requesting the court modify the custody order to grant him equal physical
custody. See e.g., J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(holding that, the trial court erred in failing to consider all of the “statutorily
mandated” factors listed in section 5328(a) before awarding mother primary
physical custody). A review of the trial court’s February 26, 2014 opinion
reveals that it failed to consider properly the statutorily mandated factors in
arriving at its custody determination. Accordingly, we are constrained to
remand for a new 1925(a) opinion considering all of the aforementioned
factors.
Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this
Judgment Order. Jurisdiction is retained.
-2-
J-A33017-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/4/2015
-3-