J-A13039-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.0.P. 65.37 J.F.D. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant Vv. M.A.D. Appellee : No. 1852 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2007-26322 MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 Appellant, J.F.D. (“Father”), appeals pro se from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which modified the custody agreement between Father and Appellee, M.A.D. (“Mother”), as it relates to their minor children, B.D. and P.D. (“Children”). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: [Father and Mother] have two daughters born during their marriage: [B.D., born in 2006, and P.D., born in 2008] (collectively referred to as “minor children”). The parties were married on December 30, 2005, separated on March 20, 2012 and officially divorced on September 13, 2018. The parties have been embroiled in litigation for over a decade, covering most of the minor children’s entire lives. The parties are routinely heard on numerous pleadings including, but not limited to, Petitions to Modify, Petitions for Contempt, Emergency Petitions and Petitions for Protection from Abuse. It is worth noting that the instant matter tracks closely with J-A13039-22 the protracted custody proceedings conducted before the [trial court] in 2017. At that time, on August 31, 2017, the [c]ourt issued comprehensive Findings of Fact consisting of twenty-two (22) pages with an accompanying Order of seventeen (17) Pages. The 2017 Order represented a significant change from the joint legal and the 50/50 physical custody schedule the parties had been observing pursuant to a 2013 Order and highlighted significant concerns with regard to Father’s behavior. The aforementioned 2017 Order provided Mother with sole legal custody and primary physical custody with Father having alternate weekends (Friday through Sunday) and one day during the week from 4-7 PM. Notably, the [trial court] warned that Father’s continued efforts to isolate and turn the children against their own Mother were as if he was Carefully planting the “seeds of alienation.” Notwithstanding Father’s behavior at that time to alienate the children from Mother, the [trial court] noted the following: Father's role in the process [/.e. legal custody] can be resumed at some point in the future provided that there is demonstrated improvement on his ability to co-parent without the constant need to prove Mother wrong at each turn, imposing judgmental opinions that are not productive to the process, and thriving on producing conflict in the presence of third party professionals; all of which are not in the best interest of the children. Father appealed the [trial court’s] August 31, 2017 Order raising twelve (12) issues on appeal. On June 13, 2018, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the [trial court’s] Order... [T]he parties continued to heavily litigate, not only in custody, but also in Equitable Distribution, Protection from Abuse and other various motions and pleadings. On February 8, 2019, following an incident that occurred at the children’s school where Mother’s alcohol use was at issue, the [trial court] ordered Mother to enroll in Soberlink, -2?- J-A13039-22 a remote alcohol monitoring program. The Order was to ensure the safety of the children as it related to any allegation made regarding Mother’s alcohol use and driving. The Soberlink program requires that the user designate a “concerned party,” such that any requested changes to the program had to be signed off on by the concerned party. The program further required that there be “involved parties,” such that all test results by the user would notify the involved parties. Mother designated her adult son, Logan Visavati, as her “concerned party,” and Father and the [Montgomery Child Advocacy Project attorney who had been appointed as a guardian ad /item for the children] as involved parties. Thereafter, on or about March 2019, Mother and her concerned party requested that the Soberlink positive BAC threshold be raised from the default zero tolerance to a positive BAC threshold setting of 0.020% (based on her belief that the default zero setting was too sensitive and was providing inaccurate test results). Soberlink accommodated the request upon receiving the signed request forms from both Mother and her concerned party. When the changes were questioned by Father and his then attorney during the 2020 custody proceedings, in order to ensure full disclosure and transparency, the [trial court] entered an Order on February 24, 2020 detailing the aforementioned changes. Father subsequently agreed to a custody Order on that same date, February 24, 2020. The February 24, 2020 Order restored Father’s joint legal custody, added an overnight on the Sunday of Father’s alternate weekends and added an overnight visit during the week (an increase of 6 overnights a month overall). It also provided an avenue for Father to improve his co-parenting relationship such that a 50/50 physical custody schedule could resume at the beginning of the 2020-21 academic school year. Notably, neither Father nor his legal counsel included in the Agreed Order any concern or request to change the BAC threshold back to a zero tolerance threshold. Father did not make any effort to improve the co-parenting relationship and instead, continued to chart his path of contentious litigation, leading to his October 9, 2020 Emergency Petition to Modify—the basis for the instant -3- J-A13039-22 appeal. As opposed to working towards a 50/50 schedule, as anticipated, Father instead sought to effectively shut Mother out completely; requesting “full legal and 100% physical custody.” Furthermore, in an ironic projection of his own faults and issues, Father alleged that it was Mother who is alienating the children from Father, that it was Mother who is creating conflict at every turn, and that it was Mother who is placing the children in “imminent danger.” Consistent with Father’s theme for total and full control, he requested that the minor children “have a break from Mother, [the] court, and its court-ordered professionals.” On June 8, 2020, upon review of an Emergency Petition filed by Mother, the [trial court] discovered that the therapy for the children, specifically directed in the 2017 Order, was not occurring and proceeded to enter an Order directing therapy to be resumed “forthwith.” On October 19, 2020, upon learning from the minor children’s therapist, Kristine Kershner, that neither of the children were attending therapy as previously ordered in the August 31, 2017 Order and June 8, 2020 Order, the [trial court] proceeded to issue a Rule to Show Cause upon both parties to show why the [c]Jourt should not find them in contempt. After Father filed his Emergency Petition to Modify on October 9, 2020, the parties appeared...for a Triage Conference on December 11, 2020 and were then scheduled for a two-day protracted hearing before the [trial court] on February 2 and 3, 2021. Both Rule’s to Show Cause were also consolidated with Father’s Emergency Petition to Modify for the two day protracted hearing. Notably, the Scheduling order...directed that “[o|nly relevant evidence since the 2/24/20 Agreed Order shall be admitted into the trial.” Despite the Order limiting the parties to relevant evidence post February 24, 2020, Father proceeded to submit proposed exhibits numbering close to 1,000 pages in the [c]Jourt’s “drop box.” The first day of hearings began on February 3, 2021. The -4- J-A13039-22 first half of the first day of testimony was directed to the children’s therapist Kristine Kershner. In general, the therapist testified that the children were initially going to the scheduled appointments, but as soon as the alternating weekly summer schedule started in June with Father, they began to refuse attendance and Father did not bring them in for sessions. Ms. Kershner clarified that the children’s refusal to attend was due to their belief that they did not need to attend therapy anymore and that they “no longer trusted the therapist.” Additionally, Ms. Kershner testified to Exhibits “M-1” through “M-3” and conveyed the following: [P.D.] began re-attending consistently on June 5, 2020, upon order of the court. At that time, increased visitation began to occur with her father, with [P.D. ] and her sister reportedly spending alternate weeks with her father. During this time, there was notable clinical change in [P.D.] She became increasingly resistant to attend therapy, stating that she no longer wanted to attend because therapy was causing her a great deal of stress. During [three sessions] she indicates that she wants to stop therapy. When asked to explain her reasons, she shares each time that therapy is very stressful because it is causing her parents to argue more. She states her father does not want her to attend therapy and her mother does, as a result they fight... In addition to this increased resistance to attending therapy, [P.D.] also began to exhibit an increase in negative attitude and behavior toward her mother. This was concerning, as [P.D.] had been working very hard to improve her relationship and communication with her mother prior to this. This had been a focus of her therapy, at her request... When it was Father’s turn to elicit testimony, Father chose to spend much of his time questioning the therapist about the format of the therapy sessions and_ alleged communication between himself and the therapist. ...Father continues to view litigation and accompanying therapy as a means to persuade the court and treating professionals that he is “the end all, be all” for the children’s well-being...[.] J-A13039-22 Father has steadfastly, if not stubbornly, maintained that pattern of behavior wherein he believes himself more capable of handling issues for the children despite what any court, therapist, or doctor provides. Just as Father exhibited his sense of entitlement and arrogance before Dr. Bellettirie and Dr. Cooke in the 2017 proceedings, Father has since continued to do so with new treating professionals. Dr. Donna Tonrey was appointed to provide co-parenting therapy for the parties in order to improve their co- parenting relationship on August 9, 2019 after a succession of several other notable mental health professionals in the region. In her letter report dated December 5, 2019 [she stated |: After the overall experience, and in particular the last session with [Father] on November 1, 2019, I do not believe that any amount of therapy or therapeutic interventions will make a difference with [Father] cooperating with co-parenting. In my experience of working with [Father] and [Mother], [Father] did not demonstrate a regard for the opinion, viewpoint, or authority of others involved in resolving this situation. From my experience in these sessions, I am not confident that [Father] was intent on_ taking responsibility for the impact that his words and actions have on effective co-parenting. I do know both [Father] and [Mother] contribute to the situation, however, [Mother] does appear to have a willingness to take responsibility for the impact her words and actions have on co-parenting. Father has made it clear that any professional who disagrees with his perspective will either be bullied to the point of quitting, be fired, replaced, or can no longer be trusted. When it was Father’s turn to testify following Ms. Kershner’s testimony, considerable time was expended while Father went through the alleged missed Soberlink tests[,] walking through each month on Father’s self-created Calendar Exhibit, and providing Father ample time to give his version of Mother’s “missed tests.” J-A13039-22 Following the first day of testimony, Father continued his litigation strategy to wear down the court and opposing counsel with the additional filings of pleadings including a twenty-nine (29) page Motion in Limine (447 pages including attachments) and a£_ sixty-eight (68) page “Statement in Lieu of Testimony” (374 pages including attachments). In both pleadings, Father sought to introduce essentially a full history of his version of the parties’ lives both prior to the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and after. Specifically, Father attempted to use his Motion in Limine to introduce allegations of Mother’s alcohol use prior to the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020; and his “Statement in Lieu of Testimony” as an effort to put evidence into the record that he failed to testify about during the hearing. The [trial court] scheduled the parties for a second day of testimony on March 15, 2021, consolidating Father’s Motion in Limine. Following argument on the Motion in Limine, the [trial court] took the Motion under advisement and Father was then directed to finish his direct testimony. Instead, Father opted to use the time set aside for his direct to argue with the [c]ourt over the validity of admitting his voluminous “Statement in Lieu of Testimony.” Having cited no legal authority upon which to enter such a statement into the record, the [trial court] denied Father’s request. After some further redirection, Father finally resumed his direct testimony. During his direct testimony Father repeatedly testified that he is the minor children’s “first line of defense” and that he [did not] feel it was necessary to reach out to the professionals when he credits himself as someone who can handle it on his own. As indicated in the [trial court’s] August 31, 2021 Findings, Father showed a complete unwillingness to support therapy for children. On the contrary, he encouraged them not to participate, refused to transport them to scheduled therapy appointments during his custodial time and, worst of all, shared the contents of progress letters the therapists had provided to the [c]ourt with the children. By sharing the contents of the therapist’s letters, a self-serving and destructive act, Father successfully undermined any rapport that the therapists worked to build with the children, all while convincing the children, over and over again, that the -J- J-A13039-22 therapists cannot be trusted. Father also remains oblivious that some of his conduct strains the relationship between the two minor children.... K K K By the conclusion of the second scheduled day of testimony, Father had effectively been given one and a half days to testify, through both direct and cross examination. Having still not heard any testimony from Mother, the [trial court] scheduled a third day of testimony on May 17, 2021. In addition, the [trial court] granted, in part, Father’s Motion in Limine such that Father could’ present limited testimony/evidence concerning Mother’s alleged substance abuse from January 1, 2019 to date.... The [trial court] also granted Father’s request to have a representative from Soberlink testify and for the representative to provide [the trial court] with the entire file that Soberlink maintained for the parties[‘] matter. Recognizing the concurrent emotional and additional behavioral issues that the children were experiencing throughout this litigation, and the testimony from Ms. Kershner that it was not realistic for her to continue, the [trial court] directed that the children begin therapy with Dr. Heather Green on March 22, 2021.... The [trial court] also entered a separate six-page Order on March 22, 2021 appointing additional mental health professionals to treat specific behavioral issues for each child as the parties had been paralyzed by indecision on the selection of professionals for many months. Before the third day of testimony began, Father filed yet another Motion—a Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion in Limine—which was consolidated with the hearing on May 17, 2021. Mother finally had her opportunity to testify on May 17, 2021. In sum, Mother testified to Father’s refusal to follow court orders and how he allows the children to do what “they believe is right” as opposed to what a court order says. -8- J-A13039-22 Mother stated that it was her impression that Father instilled in the children that they have the choice do to what they want to do, instead of what Mother, the court, or any treating professional may tell them. Father has gone to extensive effort to convince the children that they do not have to do what they are told so long as they “do what’s right.” As further evidence of Father’s disregard of Mother, the [trial c]ourt, and the treating professionals, on the February 23, 2021 CHOP Intake Questionnaire for [B.D.], Father lied in reporting that documentation of the child’s legal custody arrangements “[did] not apply.” In contrast to Father’s attitude toward the treating professionals, Mother testified that she has been working with therapists on how to better parent and what to do when the children become defiant and purport to be in charge. Finally, Mother provided her own Exhibit regarding the alleged missed Soberlink tests, with accompanying emails and supporting documentation, and testified that the alleged missed tests directly correlated to dates when the children were in Father’s custody or were only missed by minutes (to which she followed up with a compliant test). Mother showed that she had not failed any Soberlink tests since March 1, 2020, that the children are obsessed with the testing, and asserted that further use of the Soberlink device would continue to be destructive and unproductive. At the conclusion of the third day, the [trial court] scheduled a fourth day of testimony to enable the representative from Soberlink to testify on June 8, 2021. On June 7, 2021 (one day before the fourth and final day of testimony), in typical fashion to remove anyone who disagrees with him, Father filed a “Petition for Special Declarative Relief and to Disqualify the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford.” Father alleged that the [trial judge] was [not] impartial and should be considered a material witness to the parties’ case due to the [trial judge’s] remarks that the [c]ourt was of the impression that the parties had entered into an agreement following the BAC threshold change in Mother’s Soberlink program. Notwithstanding Father’s efforts to delay the conclusion of the proceedings, the June 8, 2021 date to allow the Soberlink representative to testify -9- J-A13039-22 remained as scheduled and both Father and Mother's counsel had ample opportunity to ask questions. As ordered, Soberlink also provided [the trial court] and the parties with their complete file.... Despite Father’s fishing expedition to find fault in Mother’s Soberlink tests, three things were notable from the testimony of the Soberlink representative: (1) The representative testified that while he recognized that tampering does happen from time to time, that has not happened in this case; (2) Soberlink can identify and evaluate a series of positive tests to detect if the results have been compromised, but looking at the data, nothing appeared wrong with the results; (3) on average, a Soberlink client would utilize the device for four months. Mother had been using the Soberlink device for over two years, an extremely uncommon time period for any parent in a custody case according to the Soberlink representative. At the conclusion of the Soberlink representative’s testimony, Father and Mother’s counsel were given an opportunity to present closing argument and directed to submit their own proposed findings with regard to the custody factors in Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5328(a) by June 23, 2021. The [trial court] made arrangements for the child interviews to occur the next day, June 9, 2021, while the children were at school, in a neutral setting, via Zoom. The parties were directed to present areas of inquiry to address with the children to Chambers, in advance, to enable their participation in the interviews. A complete review of the children’s interviews was contained in the August 9, 2021 Findings of Fact. The children’s preference during the interview was not “well-reasoned.” The children’s behavior could best be described as a desperate effort to satisfy their Father’s “agenda,” excluding Mother and placing him as the martyr for the family’s issues and concerns. As a result, the [trial court] placed reduced weight on the children’s testimony, especially in light of the inescapable alienation at play. On June 11, 2021, the [trial court] denied Father’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed on May 5, 2021. There was no -10- J-A13039-22 need for additional testimony as Father was provided with ample time to present his case within the four days of hearings and, furthermore, he was given the opportunity to make closing argument and submit written Findings of Fact. Lastly, having no basis in which the [trial judge] would be called as a “witness” in the matter, and thus lacking any foundation, Father’s Petition for Declarative Relief and to Disqualify the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford was denied on June 16, 2021. Within a month after the record closed, and before the [trial court] could issue [its] August 9, 2021 Order and accompanying Findings of Fact, Father filed an Emergency Petition to Modify on July 6, 2021 and an Emergency Petition for Special Relief on July 22, 2021, repeating nearly identical allegations as had just been testified to during the four (4) days of testimony... (Trial Court Opinion, 10/12/21, at 1-17) (footnotes, internal citations, and some quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). By order dated August 9, 2021 (and filed August 10, 2021), the trial court issued a custody order granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of Children. The court granted Father partial physical custody consisting of every other weekend and, on the Tuesday following and Thursday preceding Mother’s weekend, custody from after school through 7:00 PM. On September 9, 2021, Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father raises the following issues for our review: I. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion by failing to fulfill its obligation and responsibility to create a complete record in a custody case so that a comprehensive review can be conducted on appeal -1i- J-A13039-22 as follows: a. By refusing to allow Father to submit into evidence the complete history of Mother’s alcohol abuse so as to understand the severity of her problem? b. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and testimony he sought to introduce that was relevant to the issue of custody and not duplicative, including evidence pertaining to Mother’s substance, physical and emotional abuses of the children, from May 24, 2017 to February 24, 2020? c. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and testimony pertaining to 14 of the 16 custody factors, from February 24, 2020 to present, because Father's time for testimony and evidence expired according to the [c]ourt’s artificial time clock? d. If time was truly of the essence, then the [t]rial [c]jourt erred when it precluded Father from submitting a written statement in lieu of oral testimony that would have been subject to cross- examination because the [trial [c]ourt’s manufactured time restraints effectively rendered Father an _ unavailable witness pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 804? e. By limiting Father’s questioning of the Soberlink witness and by refusing to admit both parties’ communication with Soberlink, which would have disclosed Mother’s frequent attempts to circumvent Soberlink procedures and deceive the [c]ourt? f. By limiting Father from testifying on redirect after being cross-examined by Mother’s counsel and thereby, blocking Father’s right to rehabilitate his testimony? g. By repeatedly stating on the record, that he “has presided over numerous protracted proceedings involving the parties over the past 5 years including, but not limited to, custody and PFA’s (as recently as 2020 and 2019 respectively) and, as a result, is -12- J-A13039-22 extremely aware of the cumulative history of the case,” which position essentially insulates the [t]rial Judge from appellate review because what is in the [t]rial Judge’s memory is not part of the record, and as a result, the [t]rial [cjourt excluded relevant evidence occurring over more than four (4) years of the children’s lives? II. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in relying on an ex parte letter submitted to the [c]ourt by the children’s therapist, Dr. Green, without giving Father the opportunity to cross- examine the therapist and/or even have access to the letter? III. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying summarily Father’s Petition for Declaratory Relief and to Disqualify the [t]rial Judge and that was docketed on June 7, 2021, especially when the record does not support the conclusion there was an agreement regarding Mother’s unilateral alteration to the Soberlink Device threshold? IV. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and committed an abuse of discretion when it terminated Mother’s obligation to continue to use the Soberlink Device, especially given the evidence of record that Mother unilaterally increased the threshold for alcohol detection making her negative tests meaningless and in so doing, ignored the children’s safety? V. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion when it failed to give considerable weight to Mother’s alcohol abuse and thereby avoided analyzing factors that should have been given weighted consideration pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)? VI. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother the sole discretion to name a third party for the children to contact regarding Mother’s drinking and driving, especially when the record was clear that Mother would name her adult son, and that Father had legitimate concerns about the adult son’s ability to manage Mother’s drinking? -13- J-A13039-22 VII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in not asking the children critically relevant questions provided by Father to the [c]ourt as per its June 8, 2021 request, and in dismissing the credible concerns and reasonable preferences of the children? VIII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in making credibility determinations for Mother and Father that are not supported by the record and which appear to be a blatant attempt by the [t]rial [c]ourt to render its decision impervious to review on the issue of credibility alone? IX. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in making numerous Findings of Fact that are not supported by the record, including but not limited to the finding that Father allegedly engaged in conduct to alienate the children from Mother despite the abundance of evidence in the record that the children are estranged from Mother and want to reside with Father as a result of Mother’s abuse of the children and her inability to function as a parent due to her alcohol abuse? X. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying Father’s Motion for Reconsideration despite the [cJourt’s May 11, 2021 Order to hear arguments for the same? XI. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in finding Father in contempt of the Orders dated June 8, 2020, the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and section 5(f) of the March 22, 2021 [order], especially since Mother does not have clean hands with respect to the Orders of Custody and participation in therapy? XII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in rendering a decision that is based on its ill will and bias towards Father, which is palpable in the record, rather than what is in the best interests of the children? -14- J-A13039-22 XIII. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother sole legal custody of the children when the record is replete with incidents of Mother’s poor judgment regarding the children, including but not limited to those occasions where Mother elected to consume alcohol to excess when with the children and to endanger the children’s safety by driving a vehicle with the children inside after imbibing alcohol? (Father's Brief at 10-20) (issues renumbered). In reviewing a child custody order: [O]jur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. This Court 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, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed 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. S.J.S. v. M.J.S,, 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation omitted). This Court has consistently held: [T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record. Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citation omitted). In addition: -15- J-A13039-22 Although we are given a broad power of review, we are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when evaluating the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support the court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of evidence. M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 18-19 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). “with any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all the factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being of the child.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 334 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710, 68 A.3d 909 (2013) (quoting J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa.Super. 2011)). Section 5328(a) sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must consider in awarding custody: § 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody (a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including the following: (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party. (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party’s household, whether there is a -16- J-A13039-22 continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child. (2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and (2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services). (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. (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 maturity and judgment. (8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm. (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. (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 from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party. -17- J-A13039-22 (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. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16). After a thorough review of the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford, we conclude Father’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 20-54) (finding: (1) Father had ample opportunity to present his case-in-chief regarding custody modification and was appropriately prohibited from re-litigating matters not presently before court, and prohibited from presenting cumulative evidence; (2) Father waived challenge to admissibility of therapist letters by not raising issue before trial court; moreover, court recognized that Father’s actions in inappropriately sharing court records with Children necessitated sealing of therapist letter report; (3) Father did not raise substantial doubt about trial judge’s ability to preside impartially; (4) court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s obligation to use Soberlink alcohol monitoring device; (5) trial court considered and weighed all custody factors, including parties’ history of alcohol and drug use; (6) court did not abuse its discretion in giving Mother opportunity to name third party for Children to contact if they are concerned -18- J-A13039-22 about her alcohol consumption; (7) court did not err in placing reduced weight on Children’s preference given Father’s routine alienating behavior; court noted that Children’s in camera testimony exhibited desperate attempt to satisfy and please Father and forward his agenda; (8) court’s credibility decisions were within its discretion; (9) trial court’s findings of fact, including finding that Father engaged in alienating behavior, were supported by testimony from treating professionals; (10) order denying reconsideration was not reviewable on appeal; (11) Father engaged in contemptuous behavior volitionally and with wrongful intent, especially with respect to his interference with Children’s therapy; (12) trial court based its decision on best interests of Children, not on ill will and bias toward Father; (13) court did not err in granting Mother sole legal custody because Father has demonstrated continuous interference with emotional and physical welfare of Children). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion, and direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s October 12, 2021 opinion to future filings involving this appeal. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Es Prothonotary Date: 9/16/2022 -19- Circulated 09/07/2022 02:20 PM 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CTVIL ACTION - LAW SF, DEER t NO. 2007-26322 Plaintiff : : v, ‘ 1852 EDA 2021 M@QaEEES 4. DEE : Defendant : OPINION | Clifford, Daniel J. October 12, 202% Appellant, Ml F, DWIJR files this eppeal from the Order entered by the undersigned in this child custody matter dated August 10, 2021. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant is Jame F. Dag (“Father”) and Appellee is Mali A. D@HR (“Mother”). The parties have two daughters born during their marriage: Bags Dag (oR: EF 2.006} and Di DR (DOR: HRM2008) (collectively referred te as “minor children”). The parties were married on December 30, 2005, separated on March 20, 2012 and officially divorced an September 13, 2018. 2OO7-2ES224IENS “POH 2081 a6 PMH 1D888542 Roprad145076 Fee30,00 Opiniot Man (Pubic Monts Dyothonatety ke 2 --- 2007-26322-0663 Cpinion, Page The parties have been embroiled in litigation for over a decade, covering most of the minor children’s entire lives.! The parties ate routinely heard on numerous pleadings including, but not limited to, Petitions to Modify, Petitions for Contempt, Emergency Petitions end Petitions for Protection from Abuse.” kt is worth noting that the instant matter tracks closely with the protracted custody proceedings conducted before the undersigned in 2017. At that time, on August 31, 2017, the Court issued comprehensive Findings of Fact consisting of twenty-two (22) pages with an accompanying Order of seventeen (17) Pages.’ The 2017 Order represented a significant change from joint legal and the 50/50 physical custody schedule the parties had been observing pursuant to a 2013 Order and highlighted significant concerns with regard to Father's behavior, The aforementioned 2017’Order provided Mother with sole legal custody and primary physical custedy with Father having alternate weekends (Friday through Sunday) and one day during the week from 4-7 PM. Notably, the i Inthe case of PBB, Jitigation has in fact spanned her entire life. 2 AaB noted in Footnote 3 of the undersigned’s August 9, 2021 Findings of Fact: “To date, there are now a total of 367 docket entries (not Including PFA’S). The undersigned has presided over most of the Court proneedings between the parties since being assigned to the case in January 2016: sight and one half (84) days of protracted custody hearings Guchiding two sets of two individual fr comera interviews}, tyo (2) daya of protracted support bearings, four (4) PFA hearings, proceedings - relating to equitable distribution and contengpt issues and a dey and a half of equitable distabution hearings {piua numerous Shortt List proceedings related to all of the foregoing issues}. The two (2) days of support proceedings in 2016 before the undersigned represented the third round of protracted support hearings over the previous three (3} years Chere were a total of four (4) days of protracted hearings before two other Family Court Judges). Father haa appealed mumerous Order's to the Supertor Court of Pennsyivania including 4 support appeal in 2015, a custody appeal in 2017, an equitable distribution appeal im 2018 aad a PFA appeal in 2014. In any event, the undersigned has expended the equivalent of at least thirteen (13} days of protragted proceedings, plus countless other proceedings, with these parties in the past five and ane-half (5 \4) years.” 1 The Findings of Fact issued on August 1), 2021, the subject of this appeal, consisted of twenty-nine (29) pages with an accompanying Order of sighteen (18) pages. 4. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page undersigned warned that Father’s continued cfforts to isolate and turn the children against their own Mother were as if he was carefully planting the “seads of alienation.“4 Notwithstanding Father’s behavior at that time fo alienate the children from Mother, the undersigned noted the following: “Father's role in the process fi.e. legal custody] can be resumed at some point in the future provided that there is demonstrated improvement on his ability te co- parent without the constant need to prove Mother wrong at each turn, imposing judgmental opinions that are not productive to. the process, and thriving on Producing conflict in the presence of third party professionals; all of which are not in the best interest of the children.” See August 31,2017 Order, Footnote 1, Father appealed the undersigned’s Angust 31, 2017 Order raising twelve (12) issues on appeal.* On June 13, 2018, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the undersigned’s Order hoiding that the undersigned’s “opinion and findings of fact provide a careful and detailed examination of the evidence and a comprehensive analysis of each of the section 5328(8) custady factors and each of Father's claim on appeal.”° Specifically, the Superior Court found that the undersigned’s finding that Father's “pattern of conduct fives] symptomatic of parental alienation,” was not without basis, and thus did not abuse its discretion? The Superior Court also directed that the parties attach a copy of the uadersigned’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.® 4 See August 31, 2017 Findings of Fact, Pa, 21. + Sea October 23, 2017 Concise Statement of Errors. Notably, some of the issues raised in Fathers 2017 Conalsea Statement of Errors are almost identical to the errors raised in the instant appeal. ° See LED. v, MLALD,, Mo, 3200 BDA 2017, 2018 WI, 3045140 Ga. Super, June 13, 2018}. 7 See id. The Superior Court noted in their decision that multiple professionals, inclading Dr. Bellettiris and Be. Gerald Cook, found Father to be extremely controling, arrogant, and exhthited narcissistic behaviors. The same pattern of behavior continues with an array of new professionals in the current round of Utigation. a See ld 3. 2007-26322-0003 Opinion, Page Just as the Superior Court predicted that there would be future proceedings, the parties continued te heavily litigate, not only in custody, but also in Equitable Distribution, Protection from Abuse and other various motions and pleadings? Gn Febmary 8, 2019, following an incident that occurred at the children’s schoo] where Mother’s alechol use was at issue, the undersigned ordered Mother to enroll in Soberlink, a remote aleohal monitoring program!” The Order was entered to ensure the safety of the children as it related to any allegation made regarding Mother’s alcohol use and driving. The Soberlink program requires that the user designate a “concemed party,” such that any requested changes to the program had to be signed off on by the concerned patty, The program further required that there be “involved parties,” such that all test results by the user would notify the involved parties. Mother designated her adult son, LA VERE, as her “concermed party,” and Father and the MCAP attomey, as the designated “involved parties," Thereafter, on ot about March 2019, Mother and her concerned party requested that the Soberlink positive BAC threshold be raised from the default zero tolerance to 2 positive BAC threshold setting of 0.020% fbased on her belief that the zero default setting was too sensitive and was providing inaccurate test results), Soberlink accommodated the request upon receiving the signed request forms from both Mother and her concemed party, When the changes were questioned by Father and his then attorney during the 2020 custody proceedings, in order to * Notably absent from the eustody pleadings filed by Father is the widerelgned’s 2017 Opinion (as directed by Superior Court}, 10 See February 3, 2019 Order, 4 A volunteer attorney with the Montgomery Child Advocacy Project (MCAP was appointed as a GAL for the children in the 2019 PFA matter. There bave been numerous GAL’s appointed in the approximate 15 PFA filings over the years, AL 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page ensure full disclosure and transparency, the undersigned entered an Order on Pebruary 24, 2020 detailing the aforementioned changes.” Father subsequently agreed to a custody Order on that same date, February 24, 2020. The February 24, 2020 Order restored Father's joint legal custody, added an overnight on the Sunday of Father's alternate weekends and added an overnight visit during the week (an ixtcrease of 6 ovetnights a month overalf). It also provided an avenue for Father to improve his co-parenting - relationship such that a 50/50 physical custody schedule could resume at the beginning of the 2020-21 academic school year."* Notably, neither Father nor his legal counsel included in the Agreed Order any concern or request to change the BAC threshold back to a zero tolerance threshold, ** Father did not make any effort to improve the co-parenting relationship and instead, continued te chart his path of contentious litigation, leading to his Octaber 9, 2020 Emergency Petition to Modify—the basis for the instant appeal. As opposed to working towards a 50/50 schedule, as anticipated, Father instead sought to effectively shut Mother out completely; requesting “full legal and 100% physical custody." Furthermore, in an ironic projection of his own faults and issues, Father alleged that it was Mother who is alienating the children from Father, that ft was Mother who is creating conflict at every tum, and that it was Mother who is placing the children in “imminent danger”,!® 2 See February 24, 2026 Order. See February 24, 2020 Agreed Order. 4 See id. This point is extremely significant to Father's appeal as much of Father's cutire focus in the 2071 proceedings was the Soberlink testing. See Father’s October 9, 2020 Emergency Petition to Modify. (8 See Fe. -5- 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page Consistent with Father's theme for total and full control, he requested ihat the minor children “have a break from Mother, [the] court, and its court-ordered professionals,”"!” On Tune 8, 2020, upon review of an Emergency Petition filed by Mother, the undersigned discovered that the therapy for the children, specifically directed in the 2017 Order, was not occurring and proceeded to enter an Order directing therapy to be resumed “forthwith.”"* On October 19, 2620, upon learning from the miner children’s therapist, Kristine Kershner, that neither of the children were attending therapy as previously ordered in the August 31, 2017 Order and June 8, 2020 Order, the undersigned proceeded to issue a Rule to Show Cause upon both parties to show why the Court’ should not find them in contempt,!? After Father filed his Emergency Petition to Modify on October 9, 2020, the parties appeared before the Honorable Carolyn Cariuccio, the Administrative Judge of Family Court, for a Triage Conference on December 11, 2020 and were then scheduled for a two-day protracted hearing before the undersigned on February 2 and 3, 2021.7" Both Rule’s to Show Cause were also consolidated with Father’s Emergency Petition to Modify for the two day protracted hearing.” 7 See id. Aa indicated throughout this Opinion, Father routinely recognizes himself as the one and only individual that can help and addres¢ the moinor children’s needs. Furthermore, despite his October 2020 Emergency Petition alleging the children had of all these problema, Father was busy sidelining the therapy both children were supposed to obtuin pursiant to the endersigned’s Count Orders, 18 See Jane 8, 2020 Order. The Order provided that the Court considered therapy fer the children to be essential, given the history of the case, and further directed the parties to cooperate with the children’s therapy. Alsa, the Order specifically cautioned as to the implementation of sanctions, pimsuant to 23 § 5323(g), should there be non-compliance. See Gctober 19, 2020 Rule to Show Cause. 7 See December 15, 2020 Onder 11 See January 15, 2021 Scheduling Order 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page Notably, the Scheduling Order entered by Judge Carkuccio directed that “fojaly relevant evidence since the 2/24/20 Agreed Order shail be admitted into the trial." Despite the Order limiting the parties to relevant evidence post February 24, 2020, Father proceeded te submit proposed exhibits numbering close to 1,000 pages in the Court’s “drop box”. The first day of hearings began on February 3, 2021.77 The first half of the first day of testimony was directed to the children’s therapist Kristine Kershner. Jn general, the therapist testified that the children were initially ming to the scheduled appointmeats, but as soon as the alternating weekly summer schedule started in June with Father, they began to refuse attendance and Father did not bring them in for sessions.* Ms. Kershner clarified that the children’s refusal fo attend was due to their belief that they did not need to attend therapy anymore and that they “no longer trusted the therapist."** Additionally, Ms. Kershner testified to Exhibits “M-1" shrough “Ht-3" and conveyed the following: “... (PRR) began re-attending consistently on June 5, 2020, upon order of the court, At that time, increased visitation began to accur with her father, with P@yp and her sister reportedly spending alteroate weeks with her father. During this time, there was notable clinical change in Pg¥Jm She became increasingly resistant to attend therapy, stating that she no fonger wanted to attend because therapy was causing her a great deal of stress. During session on 6/5/2020, 7/27/2020 and 8/13/2020 she indicates she watts fo stop therapy, When asked to explain her reasons, she shares each time that therapy is very stressfint because it is causing her parents ta argue more, She states her father does not want her to attend therapy and her mother does, as a resnit they fight..In addition to this increased resistance to attending therapy, Pag also began to exhibit an increase in negative attitude and behavior toward her mother. This was concerning, as Paige had been working very hard to improve her relationship and communication with her mother prior to this. This had been a focus of her therapy, at her request,.,” [Emphasis added] See December 11, 2020 Scheduling Order. “The first scheduled day for February 2, 2021 was continued due to the Courthouse closure. See Pebeuary 3, 2021 NOT at Pgs, 14-33. See fd, at 15-21. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page See Exhibit “M-2” of the certified record. When it was Father's turn to elicit testimony, Father chose to spend much of his time questioning the therapist about the format of the therapy sessions and alleged communication between himself and the therapist° In a clear demonstration of how Father continues to view litigation and accompanying therapy as a oieana to persuade the court and treating professionals that he is “the end alt, be all” for the children’s well-being, he stated the following: MR DIRARH Is it true that Paigp considers me to be the singular parent who genuinely thinks, cares, reflects on her issues and endeavors io understand them and to find ways for her to help soothe herself? [Emphasis added} Ms. KERSHNER: She has never told me that. MR. peel: Would you be supervised if she has said those things? THE COURT: Therein lies the problem. Mark the tape please (to the Court Reporter). THE COURT: Mr. Dag@l if your children have these issues that you've just stated, sexuality, bedwetting and eating, why in the world wouldn’t you be pursuing them to have therapy with somebody even if it’s net [Kristine Kershner} ? JHE COURT: You've never filed a Petition for either this therapist to be replaced or to hire a new one as far as | know. Your petitions are all directed to 2 change of the overall schedule fer custody. They’re not pertaining to what the children really need which is therapy. Why is that? Or are you just making these things up that they have these issues? MR. Tea: I'm not fabricating a single thing, Your Honor. THE COURT; Allright. Then why wouldn’t you pursue them to have therapy? Why would you sit by and just rest all of your chips in a petition to modify the custodial schedule hoping that you'll get primary custody and then what? Everything will be perfect and fine? There will be no problems? 46 Swe February 3, 2621 NOT at Pes. 47-105, 2007-26322-0603 Gpinion, Page THE COURT: So I just want to make sure I understand your petition. Your petition to madify custody is that we'll modify custody so that yon have full and complete control, full legal custody, fill physical custody, and magically everything will be better, end we wouldn’t need therapy; is that your testimony? Is that your position? MR. ae Remove “magically” and, yes, that is my position. See February 3, 202] NOT at Pgs. 62; 66-69. Father has steadfastly, if not stubbornly, maintained this pattern of behavior wherein he believes himself more capable of handling issues for the children despite what any court, therapist, or doctor provides. Just as Father exhibited his sense of entitlement and arrogance before Dr. Bellettirie and Dr. Cooke in the 2017 proceedings, Father has since continued to de so with new treating professionals,” Dr. Donna Tonrey was appointed to provide co-parenting therapy for the parties in order to improve their co-parenting relationsbip on August 9, 2319 after a succession of several other notable mental health professionals in the region. In her letter report dated December 5, 2619 (entered to the record of the proceedings as Exhibit “C-6"): “After the overall experience, and in particular the last session with James on November 1, 2019, I do not believe that any amount of therapy or therapeutic interventions will make a difference with Jsepgpcooperating with co-parenting, In oly experience of working with Laigp and Magign, Japetp did not demonstrate a regard for the opinion, viewpoint, or authority of others involved in cesolving this Situation. Although J@@MQy wrote in October 16, 2019 sessions as if he had intent on being effective at co-parenting, what ha demonstrated in November 1, 2019 session, ag well as prior sessions, was not in line with his written statement. From ty experience in these sessions, [ ani not confident that was intent on taking responsibly for the impact that his words and actions have on effective co- parenting. I do know both Jggjiy and M@ijpige contribute to the situation, however, Magee docs appear to have a willingness to take responsibility for the impact her words and actions have on co-parenting.” See Exhibit “C-6" of the certified record. a7 See L.ED, v. MLA.D., No. 3200 BDA 2617, supra, at *2. : . 0. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page * Father has made it clear that any professional wha disagrees with his perspective will either be bullied to the point af quitting, be fired, replaced, ot can ne longer be trusted, When it was Father's turn to testify following Ms. Kershner’s testimony, considerable time was expended "WHild Father went ‘through the alleged missed Soberlink tests (walking though each month on Father’s self-created Calendar Exhibit (ee Exhibit “F-2” of the certified record}, and providing Father ample time to give his version of Mother’s “missed tests”. Following the first day of testimony, Father continued his litigation strategy to wear down the court and cpposing counsel with the additional filings of pleadings including a tweaty- nine (29) page Motion in Limine (447 pages including attachments) and a sixty-eight (68) page “Statement in Lieu of Testimony” (374 pages including attachments). In both pleadings, Father sought to introduce essentially a fall history of his version of the parties’ lives both prior fo the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and after. Specifically, Father attempted to use his Motion in Limine to introduce allegations of Mother’s alcohol use prior to the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020; and use his “Statement in Lien of Testimony” as an effort to put evidence into the record that he failed to testify about during the hearing.®° The undersigned scheduled the parties for a second day of testimony on March 15, 2021, consolidating Father’s Motion in Limine. Following argument on the Motion m Limine, the undersigned took the Motion under advisement and Father was then directed to finish his direct testimony.” Instead, Father opted to use the time set aside for his direct to argue with the Court "8 See Exhibit “M27 list of professionals, See February 3, 2021 NOT, supra, at Pgs, 121-240, 3 Gee Father's March 4, 2021 Motion in Linine; See Father's March 12, 202! Statement in Liew of Additional Oral Testimony. 3. See March 15, 2021 NOT at Pg, 42. 2007-26322-0603 Gpinion, Page 1 over the validity of admitting his voluminous “Statement in Lieu of Testimony’"* Having cited ne legal authority upon which te enter such a stafement into the record, the undersigned denied Father’s request.* After some further redirection, Father finally resumed his direct testimony. During his . . direct testimony Father repeatedly testified that he is the minor children’s “first line of defense” and that he didn’t feel it was necessary to reach out to the professionals when he credits himself as someone who can handle it on his own?> As indicated in the undexsigned’s August 31, 2021 Findings, Father showed a complete unwillingness to support therapy for children, On the contrary, he encouraged them not to participate, refused to transport them to scheduled therapy appointments during iis custodial time and, worst of all, shared the contents of progress letters the therapists had provided to the Court with the children2® By sharing the contents of the therapist's letters, a self-serving and destructive act, Father suceessfully undermined any rapport that the therapists worked te build with the children, ail the while convincing the children, ever and over again, that the therapists cannot be trusted. Father alse remains oblivious that some of his conduct strains the relationship between the two minor children, av issue that Pgigp has admitted to the multiple therapists she has seen, as well as to the undersigned. This was exhibited when he was asked the following on cross exammation: . COUNSEL: Did Baga receive any award or recognition from the school for her pextormance’? 32 See Id. at Pes. 46-63; 70-71. 3 See fe at 57. 4 See id. at 71-115. See fd. at 86. 6 See August 31, 202 Findings of Fact, Pactor 7; See atso Exhibits “M-1", “M-2", “M-3", and °C-14", ~Ti. = eee —_—— 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page 1 MR. Date: Not from the schaol but from me, COUNSEL: What do you mean from you? MR, ng. Ba lamented that she was not going to get recognition for all the heard work that she put into that school year, and she reasonably expected that she was going to receive recognition in front of ber entire class...And so I had an award made that recognized and honored her for her achievement... didn’t want COVID to he the singular reason why she doean’t get the kind of recagnition that the schoo! was likely going te give our daughters. [emphasis added] COUNSEL: Did Pat come to learn that you created an award aad ordered it for Bae and did not do so -—T mean did ray come to learn that that came from you, the award for Rae MR. DRIP: 1 believe she dic, yes. Yeuh, I recall actually talking about it and letting Pp know that ~ I let Pg know that 1 wanted to recognize what Ra did, and I used this as 4 learning or a teaching moment for Pag@pthat ~ you know, whose grades are not 2s close to Ryae's. . THE CGURT:...was there nothing that you could come up with that might provide some recognition to Pgghy whether or not she got twos or threes [for grades]? Was there some other type of thing that you could come up with for her? MR. : Your Honor, I always recognize Pal for her achievements regardless of what they are. THE COURT: But you didn’t at year end, school end, for her from the sounds of it, or are we mistaken about that? MR. Da: Na, you’re not mistaken, J didn’t provide or — yeah, ] didn’t come up with an award for Pg@igy because Ray was not lamenting over the absence of an award whereas Bgl was. THE COURT: Why would that matter? If you’re giving one to one and not the other, why would it matter? If anything, if one person's complaining about not petting an award and the ofber ane isn’t, they both should not have gotten something. .. See March 15, 2021 NOT Pgs. 124-331. -{2- 2007-26422.0602 Opinion, Page 1 Father failed to comprehend that he was prioritizing Bigs feelings over Tilt’ s ana, at the same time, sending both children an incorrect message by “creating” a fake school award and pretending to both that it was a real one, By the conclusion of the second scheduled day of testimony, Father had effectively been given one and a half days to testify, through both direct and cross examination, Having still not heard any testimony from Mother, the undersigned scheduled a third day of testimony on May 17, 2021, In addition, the undersigned granted, in part, Father’s Motion in Limine such that Father could present Hmited testimony/evidence concerning Mother's alleged syibstance abuse from January 1, 2019 to daie {expanding the February 24, 2020 Agreed Order cutoff from the scheduling Order).*? The undersigned also granted Father’s request to haye a representative from Soberlink testify and for the representative to provide Chambers with the entire file that Soberlink maintained for the patties matter?® Recognizing the concurrent emetional and additional behavioral issues that the children were experiencing throughout this litigation, and the testimony from Ms. Kershner that it was not realistic for her to continue, the undersigned directed that the children begin therapy with Dr. Heather Green on March 22, 2021.99 The four page March 22, 2021 Order appointing Dr. Green stated that she would not be replaced and alsa directed ber to provide a written letter to Chambers regardins the status of therapy prior to May 3, 2021, Sea March 22, 2021 Memorandum and Order. “See March 18, 2021 Order. Father had previously attempted to admit into evidence documents and communications that be had compiled and claimed it was rom Soberliak. However, giver the edits that Father had made te the documents, the undersigned believed that it was prudent to obtain the entire “file directly from Soberlink. 2 See March 22, 2021 Order. "Al gee tek -i3- 2007-26322-0603 Qninion, Page 1 The undersigned also entered a separate six page Order on March 22, 2021 appointing additional mental bealth professionals fo treat specific behavioral issues for each child as the parties had been paralyzed by indecision on the selection of professionals for many months, . Before the third day of testimony began, Father filed yet another Motion—-a Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion in Limine—which was consolidated with the hearing on May 17, 2021. Mother finally had her opportunity to testify on May 17, 2021. In sum, Mother testified fo Father's refusal to follow court orders and how he allows the children ta do what “they believe ig right” as opposed to what a court order says! Mother stated that it was her impression that Father institled in the children that they have the choice to do what they want to do, instead of what Mother, the court, or any treating professional may tell them.*? Father has gone to extensive effort to convince the children that they de not have fa do what they are told so long as they “do what's right.""? As further evidence of Father's disregard of Mother, the Court, and the treating professionals, on the February 23, 2021 CHOP Intake Questionnaire for Bagi (admitted to the record as Exhibit “M-9") Father lied in reporting that documentation of the child’s legal - custody arrangements “[did] not apply." In contrast to Father’s attitude toward the treating professionals, Mother testified that she has been working with therapists on how to better parent and what te do when the children become defiant and purport to be in charge.** 4 Sea May 17, 2021 NOT at Pas, 31-37. 2 See Jet © Sea id. “See Exhibit "M-9"; See Aisa March 15, 2021 NOT at Pas, 208-265, 45 See May 17, 2021 NOT at Pgs, 32-33. “14. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page | Finally, Mother provided her own Exhibit regarding the alleged missed Soberlink tests, with accompanying emails and supporting documentation, and testified that the alleged missed tests directly correlated to dates when the children were in Fether’s custody or were. only missed by minutes (to which she followed up with a compliant test}. Mother showed that she had not failed any Saberlink tests since March. 1, 2020, that the children are obsessed with the testing, and asserted that further use of the Saberlink device would continue to be destructive and unproductive. At the conchision of the third day, the undersigned scheduled a fourth day of testimony to enable the represeniative from Soberlink to testify on June 8, 2021," On June 7, 2023 (one day before the scheduled fourth and final day of testimony}, in typical fashion to remove anyone who disagrees with him, Father filed 2 “Petition for Special Declarative Relief and to Disquatify the Honorable Daniel I, Clifford”. Father alleged that the undersigned was impartial and should be considered a material witness fo the parties’ case due to the undersigned’s remarks that the Court was of the impression that the parties had entered into an agreement following the BAC threshold change in Mother's Soberlink program.” Notwithstanding Father's efforts to delay the conclusion ef the proceedings, the June 8, 2021 date to allow the Soberlink representative to testify remained as scheduied and both Father and Mother’s counsel had ample opportunity te ask questions, As ordered, Soberlink also provided Chambers and the parties with their complete file, which was made of record as Exhibit “C-10." “See Hxhtbits “M-17" and "M-18": See also May 17,2021 NOT at Pgs, 122-133 4? See May 17,2021 NOT at Pgs, 123; 140, “8 Ses May 25, 2021 Scheduling Order, # See June 7, 202021 Father's Petition for Special Declarative Relief and to Disqnalify the Honorable Panfel J. Clifford. -~15- 2007 -26322-0603 Opinion, Page ° Despite Father’s fishing expedition to find fault in Mother’s Soberlink tests, three things were notabie from the testimony of the Soberlink representative: (1) The representative testified that while he recognized that tampering does happen from time to time, that has not happened in this case;>* (2} Soberlink can identify and evaluate a series of positive tests to detect if the results have been compromised, but looking at the data, nothing appeared wrong with the results;*! (3) on average, a Soberlink client would utilize the device for four months,°? Mother had been using the Soberlink device for over two years, an extremely uncommon time period for any parent in a custody case according to the Soberlink representative. . At the conclusion of the Soberlink representative’s testimony, Father and Mother's counsel were given an opporkimity to present closing argument and directed to submit their own proposed findings with regard to the custedy factors in Pa. CS, § 5328(a) by June 23, 2021, The undersigned made arrangements for the child interviews to ocour the next day, June 9, 2021, while the children were at school, in a neutral setting, vie Zoom. The parties were directed to present areas of inquiry to address with the children to Chambers, in advance, to enable their participation in the interviews, . A complete review of the children’s interviews was contained in the August 9, 2021 - ‘Findings of Fact. The children’s preference during the interview was not “well-reasoned.*? ‘The children’s behavior could best be described as a despetate effort to satisfy their Father’s “agenda”, excluding Mother and placing him as the martyr. for the family’s issues and 30 See June 8, 2021 NOT at Pg. 34. AV See fet at ft. 52 See fal at BER, 533 Sea August 9, 2021 Findings of Fact, Pactor 7; See also Tune 9, 202] NOT, child interviews. “16. 2007-26322-0803 Opinion, Page 1 concerns. As a result, the undersigned placed reduced weight on the children’s testimony, especially in light of the inescapable alienation at play.” On fune 11, 2021, the undersigned denied Father's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on. . May 5, 20213. There was no need for additional testimony as Father was provided with ample time to present his case within the four days of hearings and, furthermore, he was given the opportunity to make closing argument and submit written Findings of Fact.* Lastly, having no basis in which the undersigned would be called as a “witness” in the matter, and thus Jacking any foundation, Father’s Petition for Declarative Rehef and te Disqualify the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford was denied on June 16, 2021. Within @ month affer the record closed, and before the undersigned could issue his August 9, 2021 Order and accompanying Findings of Fact, Father filed an Bmergency Petition to Modify on July 6, 2021 and an Emergency Petition for Special Relief on July 22, 2021, repeating nearly identical allegations as had just been testified to during the four (4) days of testimony. . While not of record on appeal, Father further evidenced his sense of entitlement in the propased Order he attached whereby he requests, among other things, that Mother undertake Soberlink tests within 30 minutes of Father's request and failure to do so would be deemed a positive test result?” A See Jd 43 See Id. & See Father's May 5, 2021 Motion for Reconsideration. Father specifically requested that the cowt reconsider the denial of bis “Staiement in Lica of Testimony” ox altersatively, permit additional time for his festimany and evidence than had already been piven. *7 Rather has also filed two separate PFAs within the past moath on August 31, 2021 and September 17, 2021. The August 31, 2021 PFA was denied affer a hearing by the Honorable Rhonda Lee Dantele on September &, 2021. ‘The second PFA remains paoding but the Temporary Order was denied by the undersigned. -I7- 2007-26322-5603 Opinion, Page 1 On August 9, 2021, the undersigned issued comprehensive Findings of Fact consisting of twenty-nine (29) pages with an accompanying Order of cighteen (18) Pages. Thereafter, Father proceeded to file an appeal to ihe undersigned’s August 10, 2021. ‘Order, with his Concise Statement of Berors filed on September 9, 2021. ISSUES Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)G), Father raises the following issues in the Concise Statement: 1, Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or commitied an abuse of discretion by failing to fulfill its obligation and responsibility to create a complete record in a custody case so that a comprehenstve review oan be conducted on appeal as follows: a. By tefusing to allow Father to submit into evidence the complete history of Mother’s alcoho] abuse so as fo understand the severity of her problem; b. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and tesimeny be sought to introduce that was relevant to the issue of custody and not duplicative, inchiding evidence pertaining io Mother’s substance physical and emotional abuses of the children, from May 24, 2017 to February 24, 2020; ¢. By refusing to allow Father to submit evidence and testimony pertaining to i4 of the 14 custody factors, from February 24, 2020 to present, because Father’s time for teatimony and evidence expired according to the Court’s artificial time clock; ad. If time was truly of the essence, then the Trial Court erred when it precluded Father from submitting a written statement in lien of oral testimony that would have been subject to eross-examination because the Trial Court’s mamifactuzed time restraints effectively rendered Father an unavailable witness pursuant to Pemsylvania Rule of Evidence 804, «, By limiting Father's questioning of the Soberlink witness and by refusing to admit both parties” communication with Soberlink, which would have disclosed Mother’s frequent attempts to cireumvent Soberlink procedures and deceive the Court; and f By limiting Father from testifying on redirect after being cress examined by Mother’s counsel and thereby, blocking Father's right to rehabilitate bis testimony; 2. By taking the position, as the Trial Judge repeatedly stated on the record, that he “has presided over numerous protracted proceedings involving the parties over the past 5 years including, but uot limited to Custody and PFA’s (as recently as 2020 and 2019, respectively} and, as a result, is extremely aware of the cumulative -18- in © 2007-26322-0803 Opinion, Page 4 history of the case,” which. position essentially insulates the Trial Judge from appellate review because what is in the ‘Trial Judge's memory is not part of the record, As a result, the Trial Court exchided relevant evidence nocusTiDg over tnore than four (4) years of the children’s lives. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of Jaw andfor committed an abuse of discretion in relying on au ex parte letter submitted to the Court by the children’s therapist, Dr. Green, without giving Father the opportunity to cross examine the therapist and/or even have access to the letter Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying summarily Father's Petition for Declaratory Relief and to Disqualify the Trial Iudge and that was docketed on June 7, 2021, especially when the record does not support the conclusion there was an agreement regarding Mother’s unilateral alteration to the Soberlink Device threshoid, Whether the trial court erred as.a matier of lew and/or committed an abuse of discretion when it terminated Mother’s obligation to continue to use the Soberlink Device, especially given the evidence of record that Mother unilaterally increased the threshold for alcohol detection making her negative tests meaningless and in so deiag, ignored the children’s safety. . Whether the tial court erred as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion when it fatled ito give considerable weight to Mother’s alcohol abuse and thereby avoided analyzing factors that should have been given weighted consideration pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A § 5328{a). Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother the sole discretion to name a third party for the children fo contact regarding Mother’s drinking and driving, especially when the record was clear that Mother would name her adult son, and that Father had legitimate concerns about the adult son's ability to manage Mother’s drinking, Whether the trial court erred as a matter of aw and/or committed an abuse of discretion in not asking the children critically relevant questions provided by Father to the Court as per its June 8, 2021 request, and in dismissing the credible concerns and reasonable preferences of the children. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of jaw and/or coramitted an abuse of discretion in making credibility determumation for Mother and Father that are not supported by the record and which appear to be a blatant attempt by the Trial Court to render its decision impervious to review on the issue of credibility alone. - 10, Whether the trial court erred as a mater of law and/or committed an abuse of diseretion in making numercus Findings of Fact that are not supported by the second, including but not limited to the finding that Father allegedly engaged in “19. 2007-26322-0503 Opinion, Page i conduct to alienate the children from Mother despite the abundance of evidence in the record that the children are estranged from Mother and want to reside with Father as a result of Mother’s abuse of the children and her inability to fimctian as 4 parent due to her alcohol abuse. 11, Whether the trial court ered as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in denying Father’s Motion for Reconsideration despite the Court's May 11, 2021 Order to hear arguments for the same. 12. Whether the trial court eed as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in finding Father in contenmpt of the Orders dated June 8, 2020, the Agreed Order of February 24, 2020 and section 5(8 of the March 22, 2021, especially since Mother does not have clean hands with respect to the Orders of Custody and participation in therapy. 13. Whether the triat court erted as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of disoretion rendering a decision that is based on, its ill will and bias towards Father, which is palpable in the record, rather than what is in the best interests of the children 14. Whether the trial court ered as a matter of law and/or committed an abuse of discretion in granting Mother sole legal custody of the children when the record is replete with incidents of Mother’s poor judgement regarding the children, including but not limited to these occasions where Mother elected to consume alcohol in excess when with the children and to endanger the children’s safety by driving a vehicle with the children inside after imbibing alcohol. STANDARD OF REVIEW The issues set forth in Father’s Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, all _ of which pertain to abuse of discretion by the trial court, prompt the Superior Court to apply the following standard of review, When making a decision on 4 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) factors.”*? 23 Pa.C.S, § 5328(a) factors to he considered include the following: (1} Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child aud another party. * Ses AV. v.S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822 (Pa, Super. 2014), citing BD. v, MP. 33 A3d 73, 80 (Pa. Super. 2071) 20. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page « (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the. party's houschold, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child. (2.1) The information set forth io, section 5329.1 (a) (relating to consideration of ehild abuse and involvement with protective services). (3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child. (4) The need for stability and contianity in the child's education, family life and coumnunity life. (3) The availability of extended family. (6) The chiid's sibling relationships. {7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment. (8) The atternpts of a parent to turn the child ageinst the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable satety Imeasures are necessary io protect the child ftom harm. (9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child's emational needs. (10) Which party 's more Hkely to attend to the daily ptysical, emotional, developmental, educational and spectal 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 fo protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or r inability fo cooperate with that party. {14} The history of deg or alcoho! abuse of a party or member of a party's household, (15} The mental and physical condition of a part or t member of a party's household. 21. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page : {16) Any other relevant factor.” 23 Pa. C.8. § 5328{a)(1-16}. All factors listed pursuant to § 5328{a) must be considered when entering a custody Order and shall be delineated on. the record, in open court, or in a written opinion or order”? In expressing the reasons for ifs decision, the trial court is only required to explain that the enumerated factors were considered and the custody decision is based on those considerations.“ In reviewing a custody order, the reviewing court's scope “is of the broadest type and [the} standard is abuse of discretion.”*! The reviewing court “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.“ Because the reviewing court cannot make independent factual determinations, it must “deter to the trial judge regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence. The trial judge’s deductions or inferences form its factual findings: however, do not bind [ihe reviewing court]. {ft} may reject the trial court’s conclusions only if they involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings,” Furthermore, a court may exercise its power to hold an individual in civil contenapt to enforce compliance with its order but not to inflict punishment.” The contempt power is B | See AV. v.5.T., supra, at £22-823. See fd at 823, 8 See VB. v. LELB., 55 Ad £193, 1197 a. Super. 2012). 2 See Jet 8 SeeCAl.v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506 (Pa. Super 2016), offing S.WLD. y, S.AR., 96 A.3d 306, 400 (pa. Super. 20143. 4 See Singiko v, Sinaiko, 644 A.2d 1005, 1009 (Pa. Super, 1995), -2?- 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page z essential to the preservation of the court's authority and prevents the administration of justice from falling inte disrepute. When considering an appeal from an Order holding a party in contempt for failure to - comply with a custedy order, the scope of review by the appellate court is narrow and will only reverse upan a showing of abuse of discretion.“ Abuse of discretion is fourd if the court rnisapplies the law or exercises its discretion in & manner lacking reason.®’ However, the reviewing court must place grest reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge when reviewing an order of contempt.”! ANALYSIS it is worth nofing that Father's five-page Concise Statement raises fourteen (14) challenges to the Court Order of August 10, 2021. The approach to appellate advocacy embarked on by Father brings to mind the words of Justices Ruggero J, Aldisert and Robert H. Jackson: “With a decade and a half of federal appellate court experience behind me, I can say that even when we reverse a tial court it is rate that a brief successtully demonstrates that the trial court committed more than one or two reversible errors, I have said in open court that whenI read an appellant's brief that contains ten or twelve points, a presumption arises that there is no merit to any of them ... fand? it is [this] presumption ... that reduces the effectiveness of appellate advocacy.” *} See Garry, Peters, 773 A.2d 183, [89 (Fa. Super. 2001). * See Hopkins v. Byes, A.2d 654, 656 (Pa. Super 2008). a See fd & See Lachat, supre at 487-88. . « Father's Concise Statement related to instant appeal is in similar fashion to his Concise Statement previously fited in his appeal of the undersigned’s Custedy Grder of August 31, 2027, Therein, Father reised avelye (12) challenges to the trial court's Custody Order Gwhich the Superior Court ultimately affirmed on June 13,2618}. 73. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page 2 Aldisert, “The Appellate Bar: Professional Competence and Professional Responsibility —- A View From the Jaundiced Eye of the Appellate Judge,” 11 Cap. UL. Rev. 445, 458 (1982) {emphasis in original), “Legal contentions, like the currency, depreciate through overissue, The mind of an appellate judge is habitually receptive to the suggestion that a lower court committed an excor., But receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at a lack of confidence in any one, Of course, | have not forgotien the reluctance with which a lawyer abandons even the weakest point lest it prove alluring to the same kind of judge. But experience on the bench convinces me that multiplying assignments of error will dilute and weaken 4 good case and will not save 1 a bad one.” Jackson, “Advocacy Gefore the United Siates Supreme Court,” 37 Corel! LQ, 1, 5 (95D. Though oft quoted by the judiciary, these passages tend to “ring true,” as demonstrated by the numerous issues raised by Father in the within sppeal, as well as in his previous 2017 custody appeal, Nonetheless, the Court has attempted to ascertain the gravamen within each of Father’s issues in the within Opinion. I. The Trial Court Made a Comprehensive Record Consisting of Four days of Testimony, fx Camera Interviews of the Children and Nearly 50 Trial Exhibits Providing Father Ample Opportunity to Present his Case on 2 Modification of the 2020 Agreed Order In Father's first error complained of, and ils six (6) subparts, Father alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by not “allowing” Father to submit certain evidence and testimony so that the trial court could maintain a complete and comprehensive record for review, “In all civil litigation, the trial judge possesses broad pewer and discretian to control the couse of the tial, [Citation omitted] While every litigant is ‘entitled to a fair and impartial 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page z trial... that does not mean that a trial judge must be a ‘mere moderator’ Furthermore, “the admission or rejection of rebuttal evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge”! In line with the trial court’s authority to control the course of tial, Utigants may not relitigate issues that have been established prior fo an agreed order, absent a showing of fraud or mutual mistake that may have induced the litigant to enter the agreed order.” This is especialiy . true in child custody cases where parents often desire to re-litigate past transgressions from many years ago while our family courts are confronted with an enormous docket, backlogs and with court time precious.” As exhibited throughout the trial, numerous pleadings, and in his Concise Statement of Errors, Father effectively sought to introduce evidence of the complete history of the parties’ custody matter, despite having just entered isto an Agreed Order on February 24, 2020 only seven months prior to his modification petition and a Scheduling Order directing the limitation of evidence from February 24, 2020 forward. Father further sought to introduce a Mt. Byerest sized pile of decuments and exhibits purportedly related to the oustody factors through his “Statement in Lieu of Testimony” and his Motion in Limine (instead of providing evidence and testimony within his case-in-chief}. Not once did Father allege that he was fraudulently induced into the 2020 Agreed Order or that it was a result of mutual mistake such that he would be allowed fo re-litigate issues prior 0 See Daddona y. Thin, 891 A.2d 786, 800 (Pa. Crwhh Ct 2006). "See Mapp ¥, Dube, 479, A2d 553, 557 (Pa, Super. 1984) 7 See DM v, V.B., $7 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa, Super, 2014) (Finding that the appellant, having entered into an agreed support order, could not relitigate the issue of paternity absent a showing of fraud or mytual mistake indueing the appeliant te entered inte the agreed Order.) * Jt is worth noting the enormous attention provided to this child custody case during the past year including, but not limited to, four days of testimony, i camera interviews and numerous Orders, all during a time period of a judicial emergency due te the COVID-79 pandemie.. 25. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page ¢ to the February 24, 2020 Agreed. Order. in fact, on the contrary, Father actually acknowledged in his testimony that he had “prudent reason to come to an agreement with the understanding that we would revisit in six months...’ Thus, Father lacks any legal basis upon which to claim that he was prejudiced from providing his extensive amounts of evidence prior to the February 24, 2020 Agreed Order, having already considered the igsues upon which Father made his agreement, Nonetheless, the undersigned still proceeded to grant Father’s Motion in Limine, in part, and permitted Father to introduce limited evidence/testimony concerning Mother’s alleged alcohol use from January 2019 forward (a full year prior to the February 24, 2020 Agreed Order evidence cut-off ard conteary to the terms of Judge Cariuecio’s Scheduling Order}. With thet backdrop, it is the trial court’s conclusion that Father was given ample opportunity to present his-case in-chief.* Even so, Father still attempts te distort the record as not being complete or comprehensive in ight of four and a half (4 %4) days of testimony and nearly 50 trial exhibits. Father's alleges that he was not allowed to present certain evidence with regard to Mother’s alleged substance physical, and emotional abuse. Father further claims that the record is not complete due to the Court's denial of his “Statement in Lieu of Testimony” and not admitting Father's compilation of personal communications to and from Soberlink. As noted, supra, the trial court has broad power to limit the course of trial, including but not limited to, the imitation of cumulative evidence being presented for issues that were addressed prior to an agreed order. Even though Father was appropriately limited to the “See Marels 15,202] MOT at Pe. 41. . 73 See March 22, 202] Memorandum and Order, %% See February 3, 2021 NOT and March 15, 2024 NOT, generally, -26- 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page 2 introduction of evidence after the February 24, 2020 Agreed Order for his case-in-chief, Father was still given upwards of two (2) full days to elicit testimony on what he believed was insportant to proving his case. Uipon review of his testimony, Father chose instead to primarily focus on Mother’s alleged alcoho! abuse.?? When it appeared that Father used up much of his time arguing over the inadmissibility of evidence and not addyessing other pertinent factors, he sought to introduce a 68-Page “Statement in Liew of Testimony” (G74 pages including attachments). Having uo such lepal basis to enfer such a pleading into the record of the proceedings, the undersigned denied Father’s request to have the document introduced as “evidence,” In the overali, Father was given ample time te question the children’s treating therapist with regard to the children’s therapy, to testify to his own version of events that transpired from February 24, 2020 forward, and to question the Soberlink representative (on whether Mother was, In fact, cireumventing the device}. However, in large part, Pather presented inadmissible questions that amounted to inter ala, leading questions, inadmissible hearsay, and. questions irrelevant to the instant custody matter before the cout.” Mother's counsel, Joanna Furia, Faquire, alse timely and concisely raised objections to Father's inadmissible questions. It is clear frem the record that such questions were properly suppressed pursuant the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Father simply attempted to control the entire Court proceeding to the length of his testimony and the introduction of thousands of pages of cumulative, irrelevant, and # Motably, while Father represented himself during the protracted hearings, at times, the undersigned attempted to puide his inadmissible questions and statements se as to permit him to elicit an appropriate response. 2 As a self-represented litigant, Father is bound by the same mules and procedures as a represented party. The undersigned is not aware of ayy other legal proceeding wherein an attorney or liHpant would be permitted ta introduce such a document as evidence in lien of actual testimony. 7) See February 3, 202] NOT and March 15,2021 NOT, generally. . 24 f 2007-2632 2-0603 Opinion, Page ¢ foundationally lacking evidence, Had the undersigned pemniited every piece of evidence that. Father sought to admit, and permitted Father to filibuster with several more days of testimony, the undersigned would have delegated ite authority to Father (relegating jiself as a “mere moderator” where the matter would never reach the pcint of completion). Therefore, this Court did net abuse its discretion and created a comprehensive and complete record such that a comprehensive review can be conducted on appeal. Il. The Trial Court bas the Autherity to Control its Courtroom ‘aad Lhnit Testimony ‘Appropriately Tn his second error complained of, Father alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence over the past four {4) years, recognizing that the undersigned was extremely aware of the cumulative history of the case. Father claims that it is because of the undersigned’s awareness that certain evidence was excluded, This issue is thoroughly addressed in the analysis of Section [, supra such that it should not be necessary to repeat here for the reader, Howeves, for further completeness, the Superior Court has recognized, through both the Rules of Civil Proceduze and accompanying case Jaw, that a trial court does not abuse its diserstion when if limits the cumulative testimony and evidence before the court by way of time constraints.” Ip Lafferty, appellant raised issue with the time constraints the trial court placed on his case during trial, contending that he was only limited to ane (1) hour of testimony.® The Superior Court found that Pa R-C.P 223{1) provides the trial court with “broad power and discretion ta limit the number of witnesses whose testimony is similar or cumulative as well as # Sea Laffeaty v, Ferris, No. 1131 MDA 2016, No. 1619 MDA 2016, 2017 WL 4180000. #7 (Pa. Super. Sep, 21, 2017}. al See fd PR. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page < any cumulative evidence presented to a jury.” Pursuant to such Rule, the Superior Court reasoned that the trial court had the authority to restrain the testimony, as the appellant already had a full days’ worth of testimony and the trial court had still not heard from the opposing party. Having had ample time to present his case and presenting testimony that appeared to be ° duplicative, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by restricting the appellant's testimony to one additional hour after having a full day to testify.“ Here, Father asserts a nearly identical issue in that he was restrained from presenting - cumulative evidence over the past four (4) years after being provided with nearly to (2) full days te testify. Similar to Lafferty, the. undersigned restrained Father from overwhelming the record with copious amounts of cumulative evidence such that the record would not be inundated with testimony and evidence that had already been given or addressed in prior Orders. In fact, much of Father's proposed evidence hindered on being duplicative of alcohol abuse allegations that have been previously addressed in separate Orders throughout the years. However, unlike Lafferty, Father was essentially given the equivalent of two (2) full days of testimony before finally hearing testimony trom Mother (as opposed to the (13 day in Lafferty). The undersigned appropriately limited ‘Father's testimony and evidence such that he would be restrained from Providing sinclar or cumulative evidence aad to allow for sufficient time for Mother to present her case, Thus, the undersigned did not abuse its discretion by uot pertuitting Father to present cumulative or similar evidence during the time allotted, a See fd 33 See Id at *8. 4 See Id. 39. 2007-26322-0603 Opinion, Page < {U,