J-A24008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
V.P.V. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
S.V. : No. 629 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order April 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court at No(s): FD 15-01764-008
BEFORE: MOULTON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY SOLANO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 03, 2017
In custody cases, our disposition is governed in large part by our
standard of review, which requires us to accord substantial deference to the
trial court’s decision. Doing so here, I join the Majority in voting to affirm.
But I do so with misgivings.
This case is about the parties’ three sons, who are 10, 12, and 15 years
old. Here, as in all custody cases, our concern is the best interests of the
children — not the best interests of their parents. The trial court constructed
an order, however, that focuses in large part on the interests of the boys’
mother in improving her relationship with her sons. The court explained that
it views that goal as in the boys’ best interests and as “an imperative,” and,
on this record, we are in no position to second-guess the trial court’s judgment
on that matter. But the trial court itself described aspects of the order it
fashioned to achieve that goal as “drastic.” Under that order, the boys may
J-A24008-17
be removed from their father’s care and placed into a foster home if they are
not sufficiently cooperative in meeting with their mother. If that happens, the
order provides that the boys would be deprived of any contact with their father
for three months. The record makes clear that their father plays a very
important role in the boys’ lives, and that they look up to him and follow his
direction. The record also contains expert testimony that the boys may view
implementation of the order as punitive towards them, an impression that
certainly would be understandable. Removing these boys from their father
thus is a cause of legitimate concern. We were informed at oral argument
that after the order went into effect, the oldest boy tried to run away has been
placed in foster care.
The trial court has candidly expressed its frustration with the boys’
father in this case. Extreme care is needed to assure that the court’s efforts
to combat the father’s recalcitrance do not end up subjecting the children to
collateral damage. Courts in custody matters have the ability to reassess their
decrees as conditions change, and I trust that the trial court will determine
whether it should do so here to assure that its order does not cause these
children harm that outweighs the “imperative” goal the trial court seeks to
achieve.
-2-