J-S50032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
N.M.M. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
L.M.
Appellant No. 157 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered December 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No(s): 8322 of 2013
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2016
Appellant, L.M. (Father), appeals from the December 10, 2015 custody
order denying his petition for modification of the existing custody order with
respect to his sons, M.M., born in February 2007, and D.M., born in April
2009. After careful review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
When deciding a petition to modify custody, a court
must conduct a thorough analysis of the best
interests of the child based on the relevant Section
5328(a) [of the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§
5321-5340,] factors. E.D. v. M.P., 2011 PA Super
238, 33 A.3d 73, 80 (Pa. Super. 2011). “All of the
factors listed in section 5328(a) are required to be
considered by the trial court when entering a custody
order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 2011 PA Super 263, 33
A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in
original).
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S50032-16
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis in original).
Sections 5323(a) and (d) reinforce this mandate by
requiring a court to delineate the reasons for its
decision when making an award of custody either on
the record or in a written opinion. Mere recitation of
the statute and consideration of the § 5328(a)
factors en masse is insufficient. C.B. v. J.B., 2013
PA Super 92, 65 A.3d 946, 950 (Pa. Super. 2013). A
trial court’s failure to place its reasoning regarding
the § 5328(a) factors on the record or in a written
opinion is an error of law. J.R.M., 33 A.3d at 652.
S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 401-402 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Upon review of the certified record before this Court, the trial court
failed to “delineate the reasons for its [custody] decision” in open court
following the conclusion of the trial testimony, in a written opinion, or in the
subject order. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). In its opinion accompanying the
order, the trial court cursorily states factual findings regarding each of the
Section 5328(a) factors. In addition, the trial court appears to weigh each of
the factors equally between the parties. However, the trial court fails to
discuss what facts and which factors it considered when reaching its custody
decision. Without such factual findings, we cannot conduct a meaningful
appellate review. See id.; A.V., supra at 823.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing
to place its reasoning regarding the Section 5328(a) factors on the record or
in a written opinion. See S.W.D., supra. Accordingly, we vacate the
-2-
J-S50032-16
December 10, 2015 custody order and remand for further proceedings,
consistent with this judgment order.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2016
-3-