Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10814423/moss-t-v-moss-c/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Moss, T. v. Moss, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1126 MDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Panella

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4.2K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Jack A. Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8243/jack-a-panella/)

J-A04001-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

TARA MOSS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CRAIG MOSS :
:
Appellant : No. 1126 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered July 23, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-FC-0000335-03

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 24, 2026

Craig Moss (“Father”) appeals from the order granting Father’s petition

to lift supervision requirements, denying Tara Moss’s (“Mother”) petition for

modification and contempt, and thereby leaving in place the status quo of the

parties’ custody arrangement. After our thorough review, we affirm on the

basis of the trial court’s opinion.

The procedural history of this matter is incredibly litigious.1 Mother and

Father are the biological parents of three minor children, A.N.M., X.N.M., and

---

1 The trial court notes that “[a] cursory review of the docket will show that,

throughout this case, Father has repeatedly filed documents resulting in the
case being bounced between judges and creating confusion over what matters
are/were pending before the court at any given time, as well as complicating
the scheduling of them. The continued filing of excessive, and at times
frivolous, motions unfortunately continues to this date.” Trial Court Opinion,
9/16/25, at FN1.
J-A04001-26

A.E.M (“Children”). Mother and Father are married but have been separated

for many years. Children have been living primarily with Mother.

On April 5, 2023, Mother filed a complaint for custody seeking shared

legal custody and primary physical custody of Children. In her complaint,

Mother requested that the court limit Father to supervised physical custody

and order Father to participate in a “Threat of Harm Evaluation” with a licensed

professional. See Complaint, 4/5/23, at ¶ 17. Leading up to the custody trial,

Father proceeded to file numerous motions and petitions.

On December 29, 2023, the trial court held a custody trial. On January

8, 2024, after consideration of the evidence and the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328

custody factors, the trial court entered a final order of custody that awarded

the parties shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father

supervised partial physical custody on alternating weekends. We dismissed

Father’s appeal from the January 2024 custody order on the basis that he

failed to preserve any issues on appeal and his appellate brief had substantial

defects precluding meaningful appellate review. See Moss v. Moss, 148 MDA

2024 (Pa. Super. filed June 6, 2024) (unpublished memorandum).

The trial court summarized the procedural history following the above

appeal, relevant to the instant appeal, as follows:

On October 15, 2024, Mother filed petition for contempt and
petition for modification of court order, at which time the matter
was reassigned to [Judge Kelley L. Margetas]. On November 1,
2024, Father filed an answer to [Mother’s] petition for contempt
and petition for modification of court order. On November 20,
2024, the court entered an interim order and scheduled a pretrial

-2-
J-A04001-26

conference for January 24, 2025. On December 4, 2024, Mother
filed a motion to continue the pretrial conference due to a
scheduling conflict with her counsel, which was granted over
Father’s objection, rescheduling the pretrial to February 28, 2025.

A pretrial conference was held on February 28, 2025, at which
time there were a number of matters outstanding, so the
conference was continued until April 22, 2025. In the interim,
Father filed a petition for reconsideration and motion for leave to
file petition for reconsideration nunc pro tunc of a directive
originally issued by [the prior Judge], but incorporated without
objection into the February 28, 2025 pretrial order, directing
disclosure of his protected mental health records. The court
expressly granted nunc pro tunc reconsideration of the orders
limited to the issue of Father’s mental health records, which was
consolidated to be argued at the April 22, 2025, pretrial
conference. On April 22, 2025, the court directed that Father was
not required to turn over the previously ordered mental health
records and scheduled trial for July 18, 2025.

Following the pretrial conference, Father continued to file repeated
motions with the court as follows, the majority of which were
deferred to the previously set trial date. On April 25, 2025, Father
filed a petition to lift supervision requirements. On May 20, 2025,
he filed a petition for risk assessment and motion to compel (CYF-
related). On June 11, 2025, he filed a request for permission to
bring equipment into the Judicial Center, which was granted. On
June 16, 2025, he filed a document entitled [“]Compliance with
Court Order or Official Reports[”], to which no response appeared
to be required. On June 24, 2025, he filed a petition for sanctions
and declaratory orders. On July 3, 2025, he filed a motion to
amend witness list and request for appearance via Zoom, the
latter of which was granted.

On July 3, 2025, Mother filed an application for continuance of the
trial, which was opposed and was denied by the court. On July 7,
2025, an emergency motion to quash subpoena served upon a
non-party witness was filed by WellSpan Health and Julia F.
Arpino, MD. The same day, Father filed a response and
memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to quash. The
motion was deferred to the start of trial, and was ultimately
granted on July 18, 2025.

-3-
J-A04001-26

On July 18, 2025, the [court] conducted a full day custody trial in
this matter. Notably[,] at the outset of the trial, the court
attempted to set forth all of the outstanding matters currently
before it, given the voluminous, rambling and vexatious
paperwork that was continuously being filed by Father in this
matter, giving rise to conflation over what issues were even before
the Court.

At the conclusion of the trial, the [court] granted Father’s petition
to lift supervision requirements, and denied Mother’s petition for
modification and contempt, leaving in place the status quo with
Mother maintaining primary physical custody and Father having
unsupervised partial physical custody on alternating weekends.
Additionally, the court denied Father’s petition for risk assessment
and motion to compel filed May 20, 2025, as well as his petition
for sanctions and declaratory order filed June 24, 2025; the
motion to amend witness list was dismissed as moot.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/25, at 7-9 (footnotes and unnecessary capitalization

omitted). Father timely appealed and filed a contemporaneous statement of

errors. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial Court filed a Rule 1925(a)

opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).

On appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review:

I. The court erred by refusing to vacate an order procured by
deliberate fraud and perjury, as Pennsylvania court’s possess the
inherent power to rescind orders obtained through fraud on the
court.

II. The trial court abdicated its statutory duty under Kayden’s Law
by refusing to compel disclosure of CYS records and order a risk
assessment, thereby ignoring substantial evidence of harm to the
children.

III. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by excluding
from evidence Mother’s criminal convictions spanning from 2014
through 2025, including guilty pleas involving domestic violence
and conduct against Father. This information was directly relevant
to the custody determinations under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 (a)(2)

-4-
J-A04001-26

and 5329(a), and frustrat[es] the safety-first focus of Act 8 of
2024 (Kayden's Law).

IV. Did the court further err by discounting the undisputed record
of Mother’s recent hospitalizations, ignoring the principle that
“acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties"
can equally endanger children and must be weighed under §
5328(a)(2)?

V. Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit [Father]’s
trial exhibits and thereby preventing the creation of a complete
appellate record, contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 1921?

VI. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it granted
Father 44 days of visitation per year and ignoring the express
judicial goal of 50/50 custody.

VII. Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to
articulate specific findings of fact and a reasoned analysis of the
16 factors of 23 Pa.C.S,A. § 5328(a), thereby precluding
meaningful appellate review?

Appellant’s Brief, at 1-2 (cleaned up).

Our scope and standard of review of custody decisions is well-settled:

[T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences
made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the
reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence
to support it.... However, this broad scope of review does not vest
in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own
independent determination.... Thus, an appellate court is
empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible
factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not
interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in
view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a
gross abuse of discretion.

[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to
the findings of the trial [court] who has had the opportunity to
observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court
places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial

-5-
J-A04001-26

court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is
unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration of the best interest
of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find
any abuse of discretion.

The test is whether the evidence of record supports the trial
court’s conclusions.

C.M. v. M.M., 215 A.3d 588, 591 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted;

brackets in original). “Simply stated, [t]he test is whether the evidence of

record supports the trial court’s conclusions and the conclusions are grounded

in a comprehensive evaluation of the best interest of the child.” H.C.Z. v.

J.K.Z., 236 A.3d 1106, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed April 17, 2020) (unpublished

memorandum) (citation omitted; brackets in original).2

After reviewing the record, Father’s brief, and the Honorable Kelley L.

Margetas’ well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, we conclude Father’s

issues merit no relief. Judge Margetas’ opinion effectively disposes of the

questions presented on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/25, at 11-20

(Finding: (1) The time to appeal Father’s first issue has substantially passed

as the December 29, 2023 custody order is almost two years old, and that

Father already had the opportunity to appeal the order, but failed to properly

preserve his issues; (2) Father’s claim that the court erred by excluding

evidence of Mother’s criminal convictions is belied by the record because the

court allowed Father to testify regarding the substance of many of Mother’s

---

2 Unpublished decisions filed after May 1, 2019 may be cited for their
persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

-6-
J-A04001-26

convictions, further Mother’s criminal convictions predate the custody trial and

would have limited relevance to the current modification, and the court

properly declined hearsay statements to be read into the record; (3) the court

did not erred by denying Father’s subpoena for CYS records because that

request was previously denied by a court of coordinate jurisdiction; (4) the

court properly denied Father’s request to compel the production of Mother’s

medical records based on testimony and argument provided, leading to the

court’s concerns that Father likely unlawfully accessed Mother’s protected

medical information; (5) Father cites to incorrect law by relying on Section

5329.1 and, in any event, Father failed to timely compel Mother to complete

a risk assessment; (6) the court properly refused to admit Father’s binder of

unidentified and unauthenticated documents into the trial record because

Father failed to properly present, authenticate and/or request admission of

these numerous documents; (7) the trial court went through the custody

factors and stated its findings on the record, and also incorporated by

reference the prior custody trial and findings of fact, as the parties were

seeking modification, not to relitigate a full custody trial).3

---

3 Father’s statement of questions involved presented in his appellate brief
differs slightly from the presentation of his issues raised in his Rule 1925
statement. We have excluded the court’s analysis of the final issue raised in
his concise statement, as Father appears to have abandoned that issue on
appeal. The remainder of his issues appear to be raised in his appellate brief
either on their own, or mixed in with other issue sections.

-7-
J-A04001-26

We affirm on the basis of the trial court’s September 25, 2025 opinion

and commend the trial court for its notable patience in dealing with this

contentious case.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/24/2026

-8-
Circulated 03/03/2026 09:33 AM
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
FAMILY DIVISION

TARA N. MOSS, 2015-F€-000335-03
2015-FC-000335-03
2015-F€-000335-03
Plaintiff/Appellee
Plaintiff/Appellcc
Plaintiff/Appellee
1126
1126
1126 MDA 2025
v.

CRAIG
CRAIG E.
CRAIGE.
E. MOSS,
Defendant/Appellant
Appellant

MEMORANDUM PURSUANT
UM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT
UM PURSUANT TO
RULE
RULE l1925(Q2(ii)E
RULE 925(a)(2)(ii)
1925(Q2(ii)E OF THE
THE
THE RULES OFAPPELLATE
OF APPELLATE
OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE

of
The Court received a Notice of 15,
of Appeal, docketed on August 15, 2025,
15, 2025,
2025, that Appellant,

Craig E. Moss (hereinafter "Father)
Craig
Craig Court
Father") appeals to the Superior Cow1
Father) Court of Pennsylvania from the

in 2025.
in the above-captioned matter on July 18, 2025.
Order entered in Court
2025. The Cou11
Court now issues this

in
Memorandum Opinion in of 18.
of its July 18,
in support of 18. 2025, Order.

On April 5,
April 5,
5, 2023, Appellee,
Appellee, Tara N. Moss (hereinafter "Mother"), filed a Complaint for

Custody
Custody seeking of
of the three subject
seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of ect children
ect

A.N.M..
A.N.M., X.N.M.
A.N.M.. X.N.M, of
X.N.M. and A.E.M. Mother sought for Father to be awarded rights of
of supervised partial

physical custody.

of
On May 30, 2023, Father filed a Motion to Compel Hair Follicle Drug Testing of
of

Mother.''1 On June 1,
1, 2023,
1, 2023, Custody.
2023, Father filed a Petition for Emergency Custody.
Custody. Father alleged that

the children were unsafe in Mother's
ss care due to Mother facing of
ing the possibility of
of incarceration

of
and her alleged threats to the safety of of
of two of in
of the children in
in a criminal matter docketed at CP-

II A cursory
cursory
cursory review ofof show
of the docket will show
show that, throughout this case, Father has repeatedly filed
resulting
documents resulting
resulting in the case being bounced between judges and creating confusion over what
matters
matters scheduling
matters are/were pending before the court at any given time, as well as complicating the scheduling
scheduling
of
of continued
of them. The continued of
continued filing of motions
of excessive, and at times frivolous, motions
motions unfortunately continues
to this date.
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

67-CR-0004362-2023. On
67-CR-0004362-2023. 3, 2024,
On January 3, Honorable Amber
the Honorable
2024, the Amber A. dismissed
Kraft di
A. Kraft of the
two of
smissed two the

children, and the remaining
three charges, including the terroristic threats charge relating to the children.

charge for stalking'2 related to Father. In
to Father. In his June I,
his June Petition for Emergency Custody,
2023. Petition
1, 2023, Custody.

Father theft of
CP-67-CR-0002524-2023, for theft
docketed at CP-67-CR-0002524-2023,
Father also raised Mother'ss criminal charges docketed of

property lost etc. by in another
harassment -- communication repeatedly in
by mistake3' and harassment another manner.4'

wherein Father is each count.
victim in each
is the alleged victim

1. the Honorable N. Christopher Menges, On June 13, 2023, Father's emergency Menges. regarding Father's

petition and comply with the requested drug testing and
to comply
Mother to
ordered Mother
to compel, ordered
motion to
and motion

was charged with terroristic
made notable find ings. While Judge Menges noted that Mother was

threats, he also noted that Father was declared a threat of various
of harm by the conciliator for various

reasons including would not
including but not limited to Father's indication to the conciliator that he would

follow any custody order. Accordingly, Judge Menges continued the matter for decision by
deeision by

Judge Steven Stambaugh. Judge Menges also made the following statement and order:

Additionally, aa copy of
Additionally, this order
of this is being served
order is on the
served on Solicitor for
the Solicitor York
for York
County Offices of Children, Youth, and Families and a representative
from Offices of
from York County Offices Children. Youth, and
of Children, and Families
ilies is ordered to
be at the pre-trial conference on July 17 17"h at IE:30
1
:30 p.m. in front of of Judge
Stambaugh
baugh because it there is
appears there
it appears some possibility these
is some children
these children
are since it
dependent since
are dependent neither mother
that perhaps neither
appears that
it appears mother nor father
nor father
may be able to
may enjoy majority
to enjoy majority physical custody of these children
of these children
hecause of
because various offenses,
of various threats of
offenses, threats harm and
of harm so forth
and so forth in this rather
in this rather
complicated situation.
complicated situation.

2I8PaCS. $2706(aX1)
18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)( I)
18 Pa.C.S. $3924
318Pa.cC.S. § 3924
418Pa.CS. $ 2709(a)(7)
18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)07)
22
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Order June 13,
of June
Order of at 2-3
13, 2023,, at added). No
2-3 (emphasis added). from York
representative from
No representative County Offices
York County Offices

of Children,
of I4,
appeared at the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. On June 14,
ldren, Youth, and Families appeared

2023, 23, 2023.
Father filed a Petition for Reconsideration, which Judge Menges denied on June 23.
2023. Father

On July 28, 2023, Father filed a Motion to Recuse alleging.
2023, Father things. that
alleging, among other things,

Judge Stambaugh, in "deliberate
in ·'del and wellbeing
iberate indifference to the safety and wellbeing of children."
of the children,•·

demonstrating Father's petition. Motion to
to rule on Father's
towards Father, refused to
demonstrating bias and hostility towards

at 14. On August 3,
Recuse at~ 3, 2023, an Order denying Father·s
2023. Judge Stambaugh issued an Father's rccusal
recusal

motion,
motion.

On August 14. in
Mother had. in
of Court alleging Mother
Father filed a Motion for Contempt of
2023, Father
14, 2023,

greater detail, taken steps, including contacting
greater detail. contacting the Pennsylvania of Probation and Parole.
Pennsylvania Board of Parole,

to frustrate Father's communication with the children.
of Father, to
who has oversight of children. On August

15, issued an
2023, Judge Stambaugh issued
15, 2023, Order consolidating Father's
an Order Father's contempt motio
motion with
with the
the

custody trial, which
custody trial, set to
was set
.vhich was to begin on September 5,
begin on 5, 2023.
2023.

16, 2023.
On August 16, 2023, Father filed a Notice of
Father filed of Proposal to Call Additional Witnesses.
to Call

Father sought to call Kiana Jackson, an employee of
Father of the York County District Attorney's Office,

as well as conciliator, Amy
as Amy E.W. Ehrhart. Esquire. On September
W. Ehrhart, 2023, Judge Stambaugh
September 5, 2023,

E.W. Ehrhart. On September
issued an Order quashing the subpoena issued to Conciliator Amy E.W. September

1. 2023,
2. 2023. Judge Stambaugh issued an Order Order granting the the York County District Attorney·s Attorney's Motion

Quash Subpoena relating to Ms. Jackson.
to Quash

The custody triall apparently commenced on or about September 2023, but was
September 7, 2023.

rescheduled to continue on Friday, October
rescheduled October 20,
20. 2023.

3
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Onn September 26, 2023., Father
September 26, of Defendants [sic)
Father filed a Removal of Officials [sic]
[sic] Officials

Documents II. Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father'ss
2023, Judge Stambaugh
II. On October 20, 2023,

·'Removal IL. '
Removal of Defendants [sic] Official Documents It:

Also Motion to
led aa Motion
filed
Father fi
2023,, Father
26, 2023
Also oon September 26, Therein., Father
Quash. Therein,
to Quash. asserted
Father asserted

that Judge Stambaugh was acknowledging and condoning Mother's violation of the Controlled
lation of

Substance, in seeking to introduce.
Aet in
Device and Cosmetic Act
Substance. Drug, Device via a prescription
introduce, via prescription bottle

abandoned by Father at Mother's residence,5 evidence that Father was refusing to take mental
fusing to

health 2023. Judge Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father'ss
20. 2023,
medications. On October 20,
health medications.

Motion Quash.
to Q
Motion to

On September 28, Father filed a Motionn to Order CYF
2023. Father
28. 2023. CYF to Supervised [sic] Father

for 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order Denying Father's Motion to
Visits. On October 20, 2023,
for Visits.

Order CYF
Order C to Supervised [sic]
YF to for Visits.
Father for
[sie] Father Visits.

On October 12. ed aa Motion to
2023. Father filed
12, 2023, to Dismiss for Mootness claiming.
ing, inter alia,

that Mother. as of bail
as aa condition of in her case docketed at CP-67-C
bail in CP-67-€R-0004362-2023,
R-0004362-2023, was

disallowed from having
disallowed from any contact
having any with the
contact with the alleged victims,
victims, which
which included
included the
the subject children
subject children

X.N.M. E.M. As
X.N.M. and A.E.M. sue for custody.
As such, Father asserted that Mother lacked standing to sue

of the custody action for mootness. On October 17. 2023, Judge
Father demanded dismissal of

an Order scheduling
Stambaugh entered an Father's Motion to Dismiss for Mootness at the
scheduling Father's

upcoming trial 20. 2023.
trial on October 20, 2023.

5 Judge Stambaugh noted
Judge Stambaugh noted that Father ddisputes
that Father isputes whether he
he abandoned
abandoned the
the med
medication bottle
ication bon in question.
le in question.
4
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Also on October 12, 2023, Motion for Contempt of
Father filed a Motion
2023, fat Father
of Court in which Father

alleged that Mother Mother's
A.N.M.. who was in Mother's
to speak with A.N.M.,
Mother had frustrated his ability to

in the custody
custody, and X.N.M. and A.E.M., who were in Mother's adult
of Mother's
custody of adult daughter Kaden

Dennis.

On October 19, 2023, Continuance seeking
2023. Mother's counsel filed an Application for Continuance seeking to

Mother was admitted to the hospital on
continue the rescheduled trial date and stating that Mother

October 18, 2023, was pending surgery, and that Mother would not be released for several days.
October

Father opposed this continuance request on the basis did not
and did
basis that Mother was represented and

the continuance and
2023, Judge Stambaugh granted the
need to be present for trial. On October 19, 2023,

scheduled trial to continue on the earliest available 20.
2023. On October 20,
of December 29, 2023.
available date of

2023, Father filed a Motion to Dismiss for Mootness that, on its face. appears to track the

language and arguments of 2023. Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. On October
October 12, 2023,
of his October

20, Order scheduling
20. 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order scheduling Father's outstanding
outstanding Motions to

Dismiss for Mootness and for Contempt of of
of Court to be heard at the continued trial date of

December 29. 2023.
December 29,

Therein. Father again
On October 20, 2023, Father filed a Motion for Joinder. Therein, again asserted

that, due to Mother's CP-67-€R-0004362-2023,
in CP-67-C
Mother's bail conditions in R-0004362-2023, X.N.M. and A.E.M. were

to be the eldest step-
taken from Mother. Referring to a Ms. Dennis, who from context appears to step-

sister. supra, father
sister, Kaden Dennis, referenced supra, Father stated that no court had granted Kaden Dennis
Dennis in

parentis
loco parentis of the Interim Order,
in contravention of
parentis status, that Ms. Dennis, in Order. refused to allow
allow

Father to speak to the he joined
nceded to be
therefore. Ms. Dennis needed
and that, therefore,
the children, and joined in the custody
custody

could be held
action so that she could 1, 2023,, the
in contempt. On October 31,
ld in 1he Honorable N,
N.

5
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Menges entered an Order scheduling Father's
Christopher Menges
Christopher 2023. Motion for Joinder
Father's October 20, 2023,

the continued trial date on December
to be heard at the 2023.
29, 2023.
December 29.

Also on October of Custody Order.
October 20, 2023, Father filed a Motion for Modification of

Father made numerous assertions, including that, in of the conciliator's finding that Father
in spite of

nor
accused, nor
Father has never been accused.
might pose a threat to the children off psychological harm, as Father

convicted, of any crimes against children then the Court should not require his visitation to be
convicted. of

supervised. also. again, questioned the propriety of
supervised. Father also, for the two
of Ms. Dennis caring for

subjcet of
children who were the subject terroristic threats allegations against Mother.
of Father'ss terroristic

On November
On Therein, Father
Court. Therein,
of Court.
Motion for Contempt of
filed aa Motion
Father filed
2023. Father
6. 2023,
November 6, Father

avers, inter
avers, alia, that
inter alia, Mother and
that Mother Ms. Dennis
and Ms. continued to
Dennis continued flout the
to flout Interim Order
the Interim Order allowing

Father contact. 8. 2023.
contaet. On November 8, 2023.Judge scheduling a hearing
Judge Stambaugh entered an Order scheduling

Father's Motion for Contempt for November 22, 2023. At the hearing, Judge Stambaugh
on Father's

Father's Motion for Contempt with the upcoming
entered an Order consolidating hearing on Father's

custody trial.
custody

Novemher 29, 2023, Judge Stambaugh entered an Order directing Mother to produce
On November

the upcoming trial.
the children for the

On November 2023. Father filed
November 29, 2023, of Documents. On
led a Petition to Order Subpoena of

1. 2023., Judge Stambaugh entered an Order denying Father's Petition to Order December 7,

of Documents based upon a finding that Father had failed to identify himself
Subpoena of himself as

belonging in 23 Pa.C.S.A.
of the enumerated classifications in
belonging to one of Pa.CS.A. §$ 6340(a) (Release of
of

information in 3490.911 (Persons to whom child abuse
in confidential reports) and 55 Pa. Code§$ 3490.9

information 2023, Judge Stambaugh
Decemher 7, 2023,
on December
available). Additionally, on
made available).
shall be made
information shall Stambaugh

6
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

entered
entered an Order Granting
Granting York County Children, Youth & Families' Motion to Quash

Subpoena
Subpoena for the same reasons.

concluded. and Judge
On December 29, 2023, the rescheduled custody trial was held and concluded,

Stambaugh entered a Final Order of
Stambaugh of Custody Following Custody Trial,
Trial, which was docketed on

January
January 8,
8, 2024. Judge
Judge Stambaugh awarded the parties shared legal custody, awarded Mother

primary
primary physical
physical custody,
custody, and awarded Father supervised partial physical custody on alternating

Judge Stambaugh also issued a contemporaneous Opinion in Support
weekends. Judge Support of
of Final Order

of Custody, which was also docketed on January 8, 2024.
of

1. Father filed On January 25, 2024, filed a Notice of of Appeal of of Judge Stambaugh'ss Final Order.

Following of Orders and filings regarding the sufficiency
Following a flurry of sufficieney of
of Father's
Fathers concise statement,
statement.

the Superior 2024. dismissing his
of Pennsylvania entered a Memorandum on June 6, 2024,
Superior Court of

appeal on the basis that his Rule l1925(b)
appeal 925(b) statement failed to preserve any issues and/or his brief

had substantial defects precluding meaningful appellate review.

1. Mother filed Petition for Contempt and Petition for Modification of On October 15, 2024,

Court Order, at which time the matter was reassigned to the undersigned."6 On November 1,
I,

1. Father filed an Answer to Plaintiffs 2024, Plaintiffs Petition Petition for Contempt and Petition for Modification of of

Order and scheduled a
Court Order. On November 20, 2024, the Court entered an Interim Order

Decemher 4, 2024,
pretrial conference for January 24, 2025. On December 2024. Mother
Mother filed a motion to

continue the pretrial conference due to a scheduling conflict with her counsel, which was granted

over Father's objection, rescheduling the pretrial to February 28,
28. 2025.
2025,

of October
6 Effective as of October 9, 2024, Judge Stambaugh is currently suspended by Order
Order of
of the Commonwealth of
of
Court oof Judicial
Pennsylvania Court Judicial Discipline.
7
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

pretrial conference was held on February 28,
A pretrial 2025, at which time there were a number
28. 2025,

of interim.
In the interim,
2025. In
of matters outstanding, so the conference was continued until Aprill 22, 2025.

Father filed aa Petition for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to
to File Petition for

Reconsideration Nune Tune of
Nunc Pro Tune of a directive originally issued by Judge Stambaugh, but

incorporated without objection into the of
order. directing disclosure of
the February 28, 2025 pretrial order,

his protected mental health records. The Court expressly
his tune reconsideration
munc pro tune
expressly granted nunc

of of Father'ss mental health records, which was consolidated to
of the Orders limited to the issue of to be
be

1. pretrial argued at the April 22, 2025, pretrial conference. On April 22, 2025, the Court directed that

father over the previously
Father was no t required to turn over mental health records and scheduled
previously ordered mental

trial 18. 2025.
trial for July 18,

conference. Father continued to filee repeated motions with the
Following the pretrial conference,

Court as follows, the majority trial date. On April
of which were deferred to the previously set trial
ority of

25, 20. 2025, he filed a
Lift Supervision Requirements. On May 20,
ed a Petition to Lift
25, 2025., Father filed

11,, 2025, he filed
Petition for Risk Assessment and Motion to Compel (CYF-related). On June 11 led a

the Judicial
Request for Permission to Bring Equipment into the Judicial Center, which was granted. On

June 16, 2025, he filed of Official Reports,
Count Order or
led a document entitled Compliance with Court Reports, to

required. On June 24, 2025, he filed a Petition for Sanctions
which no response appeared to be required.

3, 2025, he filed a Motion to Amend Witness
and Declaratory Orders. On July 3, tness List and Request
Request

for Appearance
fo was granted.
which was
of which
latter of
the latter
Zoom. the
via Zoom,
Appearance via

On 3, 2025, Mother filed
On July 3, an Application for Continuance of
ed an the trial, which was
of the

opposed and was denied by the Court. On July 7, 2025, an Emergency
Emergency Motion to Quash
Quash

filed by WellSpan
Subpona Served Upon a Non-Party Witness was filed Health and Julia F. Arpino,
WellSpan Health Arpino,

MD. The same
MD. The Memorandum of
Father filed aa Response and Memorandum
same day, Father in O
of Law in to the
Opposition to the
8
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Motion to of trial, and was ultimately granted on
to Quash. The motion was deferred to the start of

July 18, 2025.
18, 2025.

July 18, 2025,, the undersigned conducted a full day custody trial in
On July in this matter.

Notably that at the outset of outstanding
of the outstanding
of the trial, the Court attempted to set forth all of

matters currently before it, given the voluminous, rambling and vexatious paperwork that was

continuously being filed by Father conflation over what issues were
rise to conflation
this matter, giving rise
Father in this

before the Court.'7
even before

At the conclusion of trial. the
of the trial, the undersigned granted
granted Father's Lift
Father's Petition to Lift

Supervision Requirements, and denied Mother·s Modification and Contempt. leaving
Mother's Petition for Modification leaving

in place the Mother maintaining primary physical custody
with Mother
status quo with
the status Father having
custody and Father

unsupervised partial physical custody on
unsupervised partial denied
Court denied
the Court
weekends. Additionally, the
on alternating weekends.

his
well as his
20. 2025, as well
Father'ss Petition for Risk Assessment and Motion to Compel filed May 20,

Petition for Sanctions and Declaratory Order June 24, 2025;
Order filed June 2025; the Motion to Amend Witness

List was dismissed as moot.

of Appeal to Superior Court and Statement
On August 14, 2025, Father filed his Notice of

Father complains the following:
of Matters. Therein, Father

1. The court erred by failing to vacate the prior I. The prior custody order entered on December 29, 2023, even after Father presented clear and convincing 2023, evidence, through expert ncing evidence. expert

77N.T. 7/18/25.
N.T. 7/ 2-7. Indeed, the Court
pp. 2-7.
18/25, pp. Father to identif
Court repeatedly asked Father his voluminous
in his
identify where in voluminous
filings he
filings he advised the
he requested primary custody, to which he the court had not. See id.
he had
court he id. at 55 ("Prior
(Prior to the
filing of the
filing of risk assessment, that
the risk not denoted
that is not any filing.")
denoted in any filing.").. This appears be inaccurate, as
appears to be as buried in
in
his Answer
his modification petition.
Mother's modification
Answer to Mother averment requesting
single averment
petition, was a single requesting primary.
primary. ··Judges not
"Judges are not
Ilike pigs, hunting for
ikc pigs, truffles buried in
for trufnes that matter, in
in briefs-or, for that in the of pages
thousands of
the thousands of record that
pages of
accompany them." Novak
accompany Nomk 1·. v. Novak, 321 A.3d
Xol'ak, 321 924 (Pa.
A.3d 924 Ct. 2024)
Super. Ct.
Pa. Super. 2024) (citing Langman "v.· K<~
(citing Langman evstone
r.,tone
Vat'l 81111k
Nat'/ Trust (Co.,
Bank &Trust F.Supp.2d 69
·o., 672 F.Supp.2d 691, 694 (E.D. Pa. 2009)
1. 694 2009)

9
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

prior decision was procured by perjured
testimony, that the prior petjured testimony from Mother.
Under fundamental principles of due process and judicial integrity, a custody order
based on fraud must be vacated and re-examined anew.

1. The trial court erred and abused its discretion by excluding

2.                                                                          Mother's
   

   evidence Mother"s
   ing from evidence
   2014 through
   criminal convictions spanning from 2014 2025, including guilty pleas
   ugh 2025, pleas
   involving domestic information was
   This infom1ation
   domestic violence and conduct against Father. This
   directly relevant to the Pa.C.S. [Sections] 5328(a)(2)
   the custody determination under 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)02)
   and 5329(a).

3. The court erred and abused its Father'ss subpoena to York
   its discretion by denying Father"
   and
   County Children and Youth Services, which soug ht
   ht release of investigation
   of investigation report
   confirming child A.E.M. the exclusion of this highly
   confirming that Mother assaulted the minor child
   relevant Father's case.
   levant and credible evidence severely prejudiced Father's

to compel
4. The trial court erred by denying Father's request to compel the production of of
Mother's medical records, despite having previously ordered Father to produce his
own medical records. This of evidentiary standards violated
This unequal application of
court's ability to assess Mother'ss
Father's due process and significantly impaired the courts
fitness as a custodial parent.

1. trial court erred and abused its discretion by refusing to order a risk assessment
2. The trial off Mother under 23 Pa.C.S. [Section] (Section] 5329.1,I. even though the record included criminal convictions and allegations of abuse that legally required such an assessment be performed. to be

Father'ss due process rights by refusing
6. The trial court violated Father· fusing to admit any of
Father's
Father's exhibits into the trial record,
record. thereby depriving him of the ability present
li ty to present
relevant evidence, rebut false allegations, and meaningfully support his claims.

1. court abused its discretion by granting Father only 44 days of custody
2. The trial cou11 custody per per would be in year, despite unrebutted expert testimony establishing that shared custody would in child and that the best interest of the child that prior restrictions were based on false fals e information.

Mother's counsel to repeatedly submit
8. The trial court erred by allowing Mother·s submit false
statements without objection or consequences,
declarations and misleading statements consequences, which
in a
resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding and prejudiced Father's right
Father's right to a fairr
hearing.

trial court committed reversible error by failing to address or make findings
9. The ~rial findings on
the sixteen (16) 5328(a). the
16) custody factors required under 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5328(a).
18. 2025, custody order legally
absence of such findings renders the July 18, legally deficient.
ficient.

Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal,
ined of Pages 1-2,
Appeal, Pages 1-2,$~~ J1.9,
-9.
10
10
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

The
The appellate
appellate court's scope well settled in
of review in a custody matter is well
scope and standard of

Pennsylvania;
Pennsylvania:
In reviewing
reviewing a custody of the broadest type and
custody order, our scope is of and our standard is
abuse ofof discretion. We must accept findings of
of the trial court that
that are supported
by
by competent
competent evidence of of record, as our role does not include making
independent
independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of of
credibility
credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge
weight of
who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we are not bound by
Ultimately. the
the trial court's deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately,
courts conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the
test is whether the trial court's
record. We may reject the conclusions of
evidence ofrecord. of the trial court only if
if they
involve an error ofof law, or are unreasonable in light ofof the sustainable findings of of
the trial court.

v. Graves, 265 A.3d 688,
Graves v. 688. 693 (Pa. Super. 2021).
).

Issue 1I

In his first issue, Father complains the Court erred by failing to vacate the prior custody

order entered on December 29, 2023, Father presented clear and convincing evidence,
2023, even after Father

through expert testimony, that the prior decision was procured by perjured testimony from

Mother."8

The Pennsylvania of Appellate Procedure states, "Except as otherwise prescribed
lvania Rules of prescrihed

of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed
by this rule, the notice of

30 days after the entry of
within 30 of the order from which the appeal is taken." Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

In the current matter, the time to appeal Father's first issue has substantially passed the

order is almost two years old. Additionally, Father
required deadline as Judge Stambaugh's order

previously filed a timely Notice of
of Appeal regarding the issue of
of Judge Stambaugh's December

of Pennsylvania issued an Order stating Father's
29, 2023, Order. The Superior Court of Father's failed to

8 See Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Pages I,
I,'1 I.I.
II
11
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

preserve any issues and/or contained substantial defects
preserve any defects in his
his brief
brief and thus dismissed his
his

appeat. Thus. Father
appeal."9 Thus, had an opportunity to have Judge Stambaugh's Final
Father had Final Order for Custody

reviewed. hut
reviewed, but failed to properly
properly preserve and/or meaningfullyy argue his issues.

Therefore. for the above reasons,
Therefore, reasons. the
the Court
Court did
did not err by failing prior
ling to vacate the prior

custody order entered on
custody order 29, 2023.
on December 29, 2023.

Issue 2
Issue

Next, Father
Father complains erred and
ins that the Court erred and abused its discretion by excluding from

evidence Mother's
evidence Mother's criminal convictions spanning from 2014
2014 through 2025,
2025, including
including guilty pleas

domestic violence and conduct
involving domestic conduct against Father, which he claims
claims was directly
directly relevant
relevant to

10
the custody 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)(2)
custody determination under 23 5329(a)."
5328(a)02) and 5329(a).

First, Court did not exclude
First, the Court exclude testimony regarding the
the convictions,
convictions. rather the record

will reflect
flect that Father testified substance of
tied regarding the substance of many of
of the criminal matters. The

the custody trial that occurred in
Court notes that Mother's criminal matters predated the in 2023, were

considered by
previously considered and would
by the Court, and would have limited relevance to
to the current
current

modification. Moreover, the Court considered these matters as part of analysis set
of the factor analysis

forth at the conclusion of
of trial.
trial. Specifically, during its custody faetor analysis, the Court
custody factor

specifically referenced Mother's criminal convictions, including
including guilty pleas involving domestic
involving domestic

The included the following
violence. The 2.2 violent
llowing testimony, "Factor 2.2 violent or assaultive behavior
behavior

committed by
by a party, Father multiple assaults by Mother
Father reports multiple Mother throughout the years including
including

9See Superior Court
9 See Superior Count of
of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Order
Order for
for 148
148 MDA
MDA 2024,
2024, filed
filed on
on June
June 6, 2024.
2024.
IO See Appellant's
IO See Concise Statement
Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of
of Errors of on
on Appeal, Pages 1,2,
I , ~ 2.
12
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

prior to
prior to the last custody trial head injuries in 2015, throwing knives in approximately 2022,
2022.

and harassments in 2021 and 2023."!11

The Court properly declined to allow Father to read in to the record hearsay statements
12
wrillen testify.' and
written or police reports authored by a police officer, who was not present to testify,

Father's exhibits were not admitted into
specifically addresses, in Issue 6, its reasons as to why Father's

evidence, because at no point during the trial were any of his documents properly introduced,
13
authenticated, or admitted.'>

Issue 33
Issue

Father complains that the Court erred and abused its discretion by denying Father's

subpoena to York County Children and Youth Services, which sought release ofr an investigative
14
child, A.E.M.'
report confirming that Mother assaulted the minor child,

information sought by Father on November 29, 2023, which was
This is the exact same infom1ation

denied by Order dated December 7, 2023 (citing 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$ 6340(a) and 55 Pa. Code§
Code $

3490.91(a)).
3490.9l(a)).

Therefore, the Court did not error or abuse its discretion
ion by denying Father's subpoena to

of an investigative report
York County Children and Youth Services, which sought release of

denied by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
previously denjed

I II Id. 280.
at 280.
Id. at
12/.
12 Id. at 111-15.
13 Id.
13 /d. at 282-86.
at 282-86.
14 Errors Complained
of Errors
Statement of
Concise Statement
Appellant's Concise
I4 See Appellant"s on Appeal.
of on
Complained of Appeal, Pages
Pages I1,$ 3.
, 3.
13
13
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Issue 44
Issue

In his fourth issue, Father
In Court erred by
Father complains that the Court denying Father"
by denying to
Father'ss request to

of Mother's medical records, despite having previously ordered Father to
compell the production of

15
produce his own medical records.'

trial, Father attempted to submit into evidence a report by Julia F.
During the custody trial.

MD (hereinafter ""Dr. Arpino'")
Arpino, MD visit and
Mother's hospital visit
Arpino") regarding Mother's to subpoena
and to to
her to
subpoena her

testify.'
testify. 16
Mother's report
obtained Mother's
Father obtained
manner Father
to manner
as to
heard testimony as
first heard
Court first
The Court
The report regarding

her discharge from July 13, 2024. 17 Father
13,2024.' came in possession of
Father stated that he came of the report on

August 24, his laptop because
2024, through his
24, 2024, in October
Mother, in
because Mother, October 202
2021, her
accessed her
l , personally accessed

18
laptop.'
WellSpan portal on his laptop. Wel~Span portal information
Mother testified she did not put her Well formation

into Father's laptop because she does not know her password and login information."
formation. 19 Finally,

Mother she never gave Father consent to access her WellSpan
Mother testified that she Span portal and the

formation contained therein.20
medical information

Then, the WellSpans
the Court heard argument regarding WellSpan 's motion to quash Father's
21
of Dr. Arpino.' WellSpan
subpoena of WellsSpan argued that Father's s ubpoena improperly sought to compel

expert witness testimony, testimony disclosing infom,ation HIPPA, and
information protected under HIPPA,

physician-patient privilege.'
testimony that would violate the physician-patient 22

I5 See Appellant's
15 Statement oof Errors
Concise Statement
Appellant's Concise of on
Errors Complained of on Appeal, Pages 1-2,ii4.
Pages 1-2, 4.
I6N.T. 7/
16N.T. 7/1825 at 6-7.
l8/25 at6-7.
I7Id.
17 9.
at 9.
Id. at
Id. at 11-
lI88ld.at 1H-12
12.
I9Id.
19 I at 15-16.
at 15- 16.
20 1d. at
20 Id. I6.
at 16.
21 Id.
21 17.19.
at 17-19.
/d. at
22Id.
22 at 17,
Id. at See WellSpan's
17. See to Quash.
Motion to
's Motion
14
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

The Court. based
The Court, and argument from
the testimony and
based upon the counsel and
from counsel Father, granted
and Father, the
granted the

motion serious
had serious
also had
Court also
The Court
Wel)Span. The
for WellSpan.
counsel for
stated by counsel
basis stated
the legal basis
to quash for the
motion to

concerns Father's like
to Father's
with regard to
concerns with likely access to
unlawful access
ly unlawful Mother's protected
to Mother's medical
protected medical

information.'
information. 23

Therefore. Court ddid
the Court
Therefore. the err in
not err
id not in denying Father'ss request
denying Father" compel the
to compel
rcquest to the production of
production of

Mother's records.
medical records.
Mother's medical

Issue 55
Issue

Next discretion by
its discretion
abused its
and abused
erred and
Court erred
the Court
elaims the
Father claims
Next, Father to order
refusing to
by refusing risk
order aa risk

assessment 23 Pa.C.S.
under 23
Mother under
of Mother
assessment of Pa.C.$. §$ 5329.1.
5329.1.'24

It seems
It is cciting
Fatber is
that Father
Court that
the Court
to the
seems to law for
incorrect law
iting incorrect issue because
this issue
for this Section
because Section

5329.1 does
and does
services and
protective services
with protective
involvement with
and involvement
abuse and
child abuse
of child
consideration of
address consideration
5329.1 address

not address physical
not address medical examination
or medical
physical or of aa person.
examination of 23 Pa.
person. 23 CS. §$ 5329.1.
Pa. C.S. Prior to
5329.1. Prior trial.
to trial,
25
Father Assessment.Physical
Risk Assessment.
to undergo aa Risk
Mother to
order Mother
to order
Court to
the Court
petitioned the
Father petitioned mental
and mental
Physical and

examinations governed by
are governed
examinations are Pennsylvania Rules
the Pennsylvania
by the of Civil
Rules of Procedure which
Civil Procedure states:
which states:

The in
and fully participate in
to and
submit to
to submit
and/or any party to
child(ren) and/or
the child(ren)
order the
court may order
The court
an evaluation by
an evaluation an appropriate expert or
by an The order,
or experts. The which shall
order, which shall be
be substantially
in the fonn
in the set forth
form set Rule 19
in Rule
forth in 1915.18, may be
15.18. may be made
made upon the motion, upon
own motion,
court's own
the court's
the the person
to the
notice to
reasonable notice
with reasonable
party with
of aa party
motion of
the motion be examined,
to be
person to examined, or by
or by
agreement of
agreement the parties.
of the

Pa.R.C.P. No. I1915.8(a)
915.8(a)(emphasis added).

Once Mother's pertinent
again, Mother's
Once again, the custody trial
convictions predated the
pertinent convictions held before
trial held before Judge

Order for Custody entered November 20, 2024,
Stambaugh in 2023. Moreover, the Interim Order
' '

23 N.T. 7/
23 N.T. 7/1825 at 21.
18/25at2I.
24 of Errors
Statement of
Concise Statement
Appellant's Concise
24 See Appellant's Errors Complained of on Appeal, Page
of on Page2, 5.
2, 5.
25 2025.
20, 2025.
filed May 20,
Assessment filed
Risk Assessment
Petition for Risk
Father's Petition
25 See Father's
15
15
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

directed to cooperate in
the parties to
directed the in obtaining "psychological evaluations, home
"psychological evaluations, studies, and
home studies, other
and other

investigations, which
investigations. which shall fifteen ((15)
within fifteen
be requested within
shall be days of
15) days this Order.
of this
date of
the date
of the If such
Order. lf such

services waived
have waived
to have
deemed to
is deemed
party is
the party
time period, the
that time
within that
not requested by aa party within
are not
services are

the study
and study
evaluation and
any evaluation
of any
costs of
the costs
shall pay the
Each party shall
services. Each
such services.
obtain such
to obtain
the right to

which she requests."
or she
he or
which he 11/24/20.
Order, 11/24/20.
requests." Order,

Thus, own
hiss own
at hi
evaluation at
an evaluation
such an
to complete such
Mother to
have compelled Mother
could have
Father could
Thus, Father

cost. failed to
He failed
cost. He do so,
to do and his
so, and untimely Petition
his untimely for Risk
Petition for Assessment filed
Risk Assessment May 20,
filed May 2025. was
20, 2025, was

properly denied order.
interim order.
the interim
in the
forth in
set fo
as set
waived as
was waived
such aa request was
as such
denied as

Therefore, risk
order aa risk
to order
refusing to
discretion by refusing
its discretion
abuse its
or abuse
err or
not err
did not
Court did
the Court
Therefore, the

assessment Mother.
for Mother.
assessment for

Issue 6
Issue

In refusing
rights by re
due process rights
his due
violated his
Court vio
the Court
complains the
Father complains
issue, Father
sixth issue,
his sixth
In his

to record."
the trial record.
into the
exhibits into
his exhibits
admit his
to admit 26

Thro been
have been
not have
or may not
that may or
to things that
testified to
Father testified
trial,, Father
custody trial
the custody
Throughout the

included to properly
failed to
He failed
documents. He
unauthenticated documents.
and unauthenticated
unidentified and
of unidentified
his binder of
in his
included in

present, At
exhibit.t. At
trial exhibi
as aa trial
documents as
those documents
of those
of any of
admission of
request admission
and/or request
authenticate and/or
present, authenticate

the entered
be entered
to be
documents to
unsubstantiated documents
of uns
binder of
his binder
expected his
Father expected
trial. Father
of trial,
conclusion of
the conclusio

into other proper
or other
Evidence or
of Evidence
Rules of
the Rules
for the
regard for
any regard
without an
carte blanche, without
record carte
the record
into the

courtroom about something
because you testify about
"Just because
Father, "Just
to Father,
explained to
Court explained
The Court
courtroom procedure. The something

in general does not mean that you referenced an exhibit for admission and just because you
you

testify
testi something doesn'
about something
fy about make documents
doesn'tt make supporting itit automatically admissible.
documents supporting are
admissible. You are

26 See Appellant's Concise Statement of of on Appeal, Page
of Errors Complained of
16
16
2,
Page 2, 6.
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

identify the document, show it to counsel, and then present what is in the
required to identify

document.'
document." 27
Thus. Father's
Thus, Father's exhibits were not properly introduced into evidence and so they

28 Father chose to proceed to trial self-represented without the assistance of
were not admitted." of

counsel;
counsel, and it is clear that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as counsel;

of knowledge of
Father should not be afforded any leeway for his lack of of legal process or

procedure.

Therefore, the Court did not err or abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Father's

of unidentified and unauthenticated documents into the trial record.
binder of

Issues 7 and 9

These issues are closely related and thus the Court will address them together. Father

of custody per
complains that the Court abused its discretion by granting Father only 44 days of

be in the best
year, despite unrebutted expert testimony establishing that shared custody would be

interest of child and that prior restrictions were based on false testimony. 29Additionally.
of the child Additionally,

Father complains the Court committed reversible error by failing to address or make finding on

16 custody factors required under 23 Pa.C.S. Section
the 16 Section 5328(a). and the
tbe absence of
of such
30
18. 2025, custody order legally deficient."
findings renders the July 18,

form of
Pennsylvania law requires that, "[i]n ordering any fo of custody, the court shall

of the child by considering all relevant factors[.)."
determine the best interest of factors[.]. Moreover, "a
Moreover. "a

court may award any of
'court of seven delineated 'types of custody if
types of if it is in the best interest of
of the

considering the factors set forth in [S]ection 5328 (relating to factors to consider
child' after 'considering

27N.T. a1 277-78.
N.T. 7/18/25 at

30
/d at 278.
28 Id.
2,
of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Page 2, 1 7.
29 See Appellant's Concise Statement of
30 Id. at9.
/l. at 19.
17
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

custody)[.]" Graves
when awarding custody)[.]"' Graves, 265 A.3d 688,
• Graves,
Graves v. 688. 694 (Pa. Super. 2021
2021 )(emphasis

added).The trial court articulate the
Custody Act requires only that the trial
"The Custody the reasons for its

custody decision in open court or in a written opinion or order taking into consideration

the enumerated factors." Id.
the • M.L.G.,
Id. at 700 (citing M.J.M. v. ML.G., 63 A.3d 331. 336 (Pa. Super.
I , 336

2013) (citations
2013) [T[here is no required amount of
(citations omitted) (emphasis added)). "IT)here of detail for the

trial court's explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered

and that the based on those considerations." Id.
the custody decision is based Id.

In custody matters,
In matters. the controlling question and paramount concern is
is the best interests of
of

child. and all other considerations are deemed subordinate lo
the child, to the child's physical,
physical, intellectual.
intellectual,

See McMillen
moral, and spiritual well-being. See McMillen v.
• McMillen,
Me Millen. 602 A.2d 845, 847 (Pa. 1992). Issues

of credibility
of of the evidence, absent an abuse of
credibility and weight of of discretion, are to be decided by the

See N.
trial court. See NH.M. • P.
H. M v. P.UT,
U. T, 947 A.2d I1268, Super, 2008).
(Pa. Super.
268, 1272 (Pa.

of
Pursuant to Section 5328(a) (Factors to consider when awarding custody) of

Pennsylvania's Child Custody Act:

In ordering any fonn
In form of
of custody, the court shall dete1mine
determine the best interest of of the childld by
factors. giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors
considering all relevant factors,
specified under paragraphs (1),(2),(2.1)
), (2), (2. I) and (2.2) which affect the safety of the child,
of the
including the following:
(I) likely to ensure the safety of
(I) Which party is more likely of the child.
(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of of the party's
party's
include past or current protection from abuse or sexual
household, which may include
violence protection orders where there has been a finding of of abuse.
(2.1)
(2.1) The information
infonnation set forth in
in section 5329.1 (a)
(a) (relating to consideration of of
child abuse and involvement with protective services).
(2.2) Violent or assaultive behavior committed by a party.
(2.3) Which pruty frequent ru1d
party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing
child and another party if
contact between the child if contact is consistent with the safety
of the child.
needs of
performed by
(3) The parental duties perfonned hy each pruty
party on behalf of the child.
behalf of
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life life and
community life, except if changes are necessary to protect the safety of of the child
18
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

or a party.
(5) The availability of of extended family.
(6) The child's
ld's sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of of the child,
child. based on the child's developmental
stage, maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of of a party to tum
turn the chi
cbild
ld against the other party, except in cases
of abuse where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the
of of
the safety of
the child. A party's reasonable concerns for the safety of of the child
ld and the party's
reasonable efforts to protect the child shall not be considered attempts to turn the
reasonable
child's deficient or negative relationship with a
child against the other party. A chjJd's
party shall be presumed to be
shall not be be caused by thethe other party.
(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.
(I 0) Which
(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional.
physical. emotional,
developmental, educational and special needs of of the child.
(11) The proximity of
(11) of the residences ofof the parties.
(12)
12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate
child-care arrangements.
(13) The level of of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of of
the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child ld or self
from abuse by another party is not evidence of of unwillingness or inability to
cooperate with that party.
(14)
14) The history of of drug or alcohol abuse
ahuse of
of a party or member of of a party's
household.
(I5) The mental and physical condition of
(15) of a party or member of of a party's
household.
(16)
16) Any other relevant factor.

PAC.S.A. §5328(a).
23 Pa.C.S.A. $5328(a).

court must utilize those factors to detem1ine
A trial court determine what type of
of physical and legal

of those factors outlined above, the court may consider
custody to award. After consideration of

which form of Pa.CS, §$ 5323 to award the parties, if
of custody pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. if any. It is within
within the

courts purview as the finder of
trial court' of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical

M..J.M.. 63 A.3d at 339.
in each particular case. See M.J.M.

factors (a total of
The trial court clearly went through the custody factors of 16
16 were in effect at the

of trial) at the conclusion
time of conclusion of
of the trial and stated its findings on the record in the presence of
of

19
19
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

the parties and counsel.''
31 The Court also incorporated
by reference the prior custody trial held by

Judge Stambaugh, as well as Judge Stambaugh's findings of it was made clear to
of fact, given that it

of that custody order, not a "second bite at the apple" to
the parties that this was a modification of

relitigate evidence previously introduced during a full blown custody trial held a little over

32
a year half prior (December 2023).'
year and a half

it appropriate to grant Father'ss request to
Based upon its factor analysis, the Court found it

lift his supervision would exercise
supervision requirements, such that he would of the
se partial physical custody of

children on alternating weekende.'
alternating weekends. credible of
33 The Court found credible the testimony of his experts that

Father "completed the evaluations that were directed by Judge Stambaugh sufficiently to indicate

that [he] does not pose an emotional or psychological risk of han11
sk of harm."," which was bolstered
bolstered by the
34
of the children to resume
preference of resume a custodial relationship with him.' time of
Notably, at the time of

the trial and for two years prior, Father had exercised very little supervised visitation with the

children were interviewed and
children, given the associated cost.35 However, all three children

expressed a desire to return to having regular visits with their Father, and all confirmed that they

safe with
felt safe with him.
him."36

commit a reversible error by denying
Therefore, the Court did not abuse its discretion or commit

Mother'ss modification petition and maintainfog of granting
maintaining status quo, with the exception of

Fatherss request to lift
Father' lift supervised visitation.

311 N.T. 7/18/25 279-84.
18/25 at 279-84.
32 Id. at 132-33,..
/d. at
33 Id. at 285.
/d. at 285.
1. at
34 Id. at 292.
262-64.
35 Id. at 262-64.
36 /d. at 285-86.
36 Id. 285-86. At the time of
of trial, the children 14.
L3, and 14.
ldren were aged 12, 13,
20
York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM
3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25
Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03

Issue 8

Father claims, in his eighth issue, that the Court erred by allowing Mother'ss counsel,

misleading statements without
Attorney Holt, to repeatedly submit false declarations and misleading

consequence.'
objection or consequence. in I, it
37 As discussed in Issue 1, it is clear that Father was and remains

of the parties' initial custody trial. 38 Absent specific
unhappy with the outcome of fic reference to

statements made, objections lodged, or rulings thereupon claimed to be in error, the Court does

not believe any further discussion is warranted regarding this issue.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing reasons, thiss Court submits that it
it did not eJT
err or abuse its

discretion.

TED: September 16, 2025
DATED: ·TAS, JUDGE

37 See Appellant's Concise
37 Concise Statement
Statement of
of Errors
Errors Complained of
of on
on Appeal, Page
Page2.$
2, ~ 88
38 N.T.
38 7/I8/25
N.T. 7/ at 151
18/25 at 151,, 154-55.
154-55.
21
OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY3-NOTICE GIVEN 9-17-25
Of York Cou
Of Yori< County
nty

Diane M. Platts
Prothonotary Y.ork County Courthouse
York
Billie Jo ~ones
Billie Bones 45 North George Street
45
Prothonotary
Deputy Prothonotary York, Pennsylvania 17401
Gregory E. Gettle Telephone (717) 771-9611
-9611
Solicitor

NOTICE FORM
Notice Given to: Crag 3 Moss
C r()., Moss
of recipient)
(Name of

(Name of recipient)
(Name of

of recipient)
(Name of

Via DELIVERY
HAND DELIVE.
of communication)
(Method of

Case# & Description 1260) 2015-FC335-03

On Sp+ l17#%,2025
s~p+- 'lfh I ioi-s
(Date)

DG
1)&JJ
(Clcrk initials)
(Clerk
,•t

3-NOTICE GIVEN 9-17-25
Garibay-Navarro. Day_
Garibay-Navarro,

From:
Dayanna
a nna
'l'I
Prothonotary Email Account

count

Sent: 9.05 /\M
Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:0) AM
To:
To: 7178431993@concordsena.com
1993@conco rdsend.com
Subject: 2015- 03
2015-FC-0003355-03
Attachments: 2025-09-17 (4).pf
17 (4).pdf

21 PAGES
FARLEY G HOLT ESQ

of Entry of
Notice of Order accordance with PAR.
of Order·in R. C. P. 236.
.
;

If you have a question forthe
ff call 717-771-9611.
the Prothonotary's Office, call 771-96 11. Thank you.

not reply to this e-mail; this inbox is not
Please do not not monitored.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of of the intended
and may
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged intorrnation. Any
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
review,
or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
disclosure, or not the intended
intended recipient,t, please contact
contact the sender at
at
number listed
the phone number listed above and
and destroy
destroy all copies of
of the original
al message.
essage.

4
A

J