K.R.W. v. J.R.R., 2017 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1293, is illustrative of how a Court will review testimony regarding custody of children. In K.R.W., we have a very good example of the Court’s thought process regarding custody. The case involved a father who felt that the mother of the children was a drug addict who could not adequately care for her children. You will see from the following testimony that the drug habit was not the most important lodestone in the Court’s determination.
The Court stated:” On this factor we come down strongly on the side of [Mother]. The proceedings in this court began with a petition for emergency relief filed by [Mother] because [Father] was refusing to allow [Mother] to take the younger child of the parties, [E.J.R.], because he contended that she was not able to care for the [C]children. His position all along has been that [Mother] is a drug addict and is not safe with the [C]children. The court’s finding is that [Mother] has appropriately addressed her drug issues and at the hearing in late 2014 we received testimony from Dr. Kahler that we considered credible and controlling. We do conclude [Mother] has not used illegal drugs since before she admitted herself to drug rehab in 2013. Dr. Kahler confirms that [Mother] has been screened clean during her frequent visits to his office. [Mother] has demonstrated more respect for [Father’s] parenting skills than [Father] has demonstrated towards [Mother]. [Mother] has offered frequently to expand [Father’s] time with the children. Significantly when [Mother] was hospitalized, she suggested that [Father] should take the [C]children and it took him two (2) days to pick up the [C]children. Since the late 2014 hearing and adduced in the testimony in the more recent hearings in 2016, [Father] seems more supportive of [Mother’s] efforts to parent and has stated that the two of them, when they communicate between themselves, communicate well. He said it is only when they get close to litigation or close to court dates that she seems to become unwilling to communicate. Hopefully, the conclusion of the proceedings will allow both parties to be more open with each other.”
The Court noted that the mother supported the children’s relationship with the father and was happy to provide him with further custody. Important here is the Court’s perception of how the father and mother relate to each other and support each other’s parenting decisions. The Court also stated:
[t]he [C]children are both always glad to see [Father] at the start of his custody time. There was testimony the [Children] are not always glad to see [Mother] at the start of her custody time. The paternal grandmother, [D.R.], and [Father] testified that at times [E.R.R.] does not want to go with [Mother]. So much so that she has had to chase [E.R.R.] throughout the house as [E.R.R.] hides. This testimony was contradicted by [Mother] and we accept [Mother’s] version as credible, that [D.R.] has been seen by [Mother] hugging [E.R.R.] at the time of the exchange and consoling her [by] saying words to the effect, “I don’t want you to go, but you have to go.” We find that conduct is debilitative of [E.R.R.’s] relationship with [Mother] and certainly inflames the exchange. Both parents should be promoting the bond with the other parent. In this case having the paternal grandmother telling [E.R.R.] she would not have to leave but for the court order or [Mother] … is doing damage and is wrong. We accept [Mother’s] testimony on that point.”
The Court also notes the behavior of the maternal grandmother and again takes note of the parents and grandparents behavior. Clearly the Court focuses again on the caretakers supporting each other’s parenting decisions and methods. Antagonistic or inciting behavior is also noted by the Court. The Court also stated:
“Finally, the court found significant the fact that Father had turned down repeated offers by Mother of increased periods of custody, stating that “this shows [Mother] is willing to keep [Father] fully engaged and is liberal in terms of allowing him extra time with the [C]children,” while Father “is, for whatever reason, unwilling to take advantage of any time he could possibly have with the [C]children.”
Mother testified that she wants the Children to have a good relationship with Father, encourages them to talk with Father on the telephone during her periods of custody, and actively attempts to make custody transitions cooperative for the sake of the Children. Mother indicated that, although Father has expressed interest in attending various events for the Children, including parent-teacher conferences, he will not appear at those events, despite having ample notice of the date, time, and location. She indicated that she initiates contact with Father regarding the Children, usually via text message, and that their level of communication had improved between the April 22, 2016 and May 26, 2016 custody hearings.
The takeaways here are many. First, you can have a problem with addiction and/ or the law, and if you take care of the situation, it will not affect the custody of your children. Second, the way you behave toward your ex-spouse is very important. The more you demonstrate respect and kindness, the better off you will be in the eyes of the Court. The party that is perceived to be less reasonable is the party that the Court will not favor. The more reasonable you seem, the better your chances in front of a Judge. Third, do not attempt to alienate the affections of the other spouse. This also does not play well in front of a Court. The bottom line here appears to be that demonstrating respect for the parenting of the ex-spouse is a winning formula.