Trending
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has agreed with a decision by a Bedford County judge who ruled the mother of a young child should retain custody of the child even though the grandmother raised him for the first six years of his life.
The ruling was issued Friday by a Superior Court panel of judges that included Mary Jane Bowes, Judith F. Olson and Megan King.
The Superior Court was presented with a long-running dispute between the grandmother and mother, who had shared custody of the child over a period of many years.
In 2016, there was a court order in which the two women agreed the grandmother would serve in the role of primary custodian, with the mother receiving partial custody rights.
Those roles were reversed in 2021 when the mother became concerned that the child's safety may be compromised when the child's father and an uncle, who were facing drug and other charges, moved in with the grandmother.
The Superior Court opinion issued late last week upheld the change-of-custody order issued by Bedford Judge Brandi J. Hershey, noting "Mother's emergency petition for special relief raised safety concerns for the child in Grandmother's home."
The child's father and uncle -- the sons of the grandmother -- were facing sex and gun charges and were living with the grandmother.
Their moving into the home forced the child out of his own room, according to the facts as reported in Hershey's opinion.
"Our review of the record confirms that competent evidence of safety concerns justified the court's decision to disrupt the existing custody arrangement," according to the Superior Court decision.
However, the father and uncle eventually moved out of the home.
At that point, the grandmother again sought primary custody of the child, noting her service as the child's primary caregiver for the first six years of his life.
The grandmother argued through Altoona attorney Mark S. Zearfaus that she had always acted in the best interests of the child and ensured he maintained a relationship with his mother.
The grandmother asked the Bedford judge to vacate the current custody order and return primary physical custody to her.
"We disagree," stated the Superior Court opinion.
The Superior Court listed 16 issues a judge should consider when deciding a custody dispute.
The appeals court noted that in custody cases like this one, "the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the biological parents' side."
Under that category, the trial court found the grandmother had "undermined the child's ability to assimilate into the mother's home."
The mother, the judge stated, appreciated the grandmother's role as caregiver for the first six years of the child's life, but the county court was concerned that the grandmother's statements to the child (such as, "I cry when you're not here") tended to put an "emotional roadblock into transitioning into mother's household."
The judge concluded the grandmother's "emotional manipulation" was a problem, and she found the grandmother in contempt for violating a court order not to interfere with the placement of the child in the mother's home.
The Superior Court panel indicated it supported the lower court's ruling.
The appeals court stressed, "We recognize that the court made first-hand observations of the parties spanning the course of these (many) hearings, and we grant due deference to the conclusions of those observations."
The mother in the case was represented by Bedford attorney Anthony J. Zanoni.
Attorney Carol Ann Rose of Bedford represented the child as court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem.