Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10802482/eq-v-mgp/about:blank#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 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

E.Q. v. M.G.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2158 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Lazarus

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Anne E. Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8236/anne-e-lazarus/)

J-S04015-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

E.Q. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
M.G.P. :
:
Appellant : No. 2158 EDA 2025
:
:
:
:
v. :
:
:
D.D. :

Appeal from the Order Entered July 11, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s):
2024-FC-1255

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MARCH 2, 2026

M.G.P. (“Father”) appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court

of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, awarding sole legal and primary physical

custody of M.A.P. (“Child”) to Child’s paternal grandmother, E.Q.

(“Grandmother”). Upon careful review, we are constrained to vacate the order

and remand for the entry of a new final custody order in compliance with 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d).

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case

as follows:
J-S04015-26

On December 13, 2024, [Grandmother]1 filed a complaint for
custody seeking sole legal and sole physical custody because []
Child was subjected to abuse and neglect in [F]ather’s household,
and [] Child’s mother is deceased, having been found bludgeoned
to death and naked between two parked cars in the Kensington
neighborhood of Philadelphia in May of 2024. At the time
Grandmother filed the complaint, [] Child was living with
Grandmother while [Father] was in prison awaiting sentencing for
assaulting his girlfriend, intervenor, [D.D.]3 [] Child began living
with Grandmother in August of 2024, after [] Child called
Grandmother’s other son, [G.O., Jr.], and reported being
physically abused by [D.D.]. [G.O., Jr.,] immediately went to
[D.D.’s] residence with his father, [G.O., Sr.], where [D.D.], who
claimed [] Child was being unruly, told [G.O., Jr., G.O., Sr.] and
Grandmother to take [] Child into their care.
1 After hearing and by order dated March 3, 2025, the court

determined that [Grandmother] had standing [to seek
custody] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324(3).

...
3 After hearing and by order dated May 28, 2025, the court

determined that [D.D.] had standing to seek custody
pursuant to [section] 5324(2).

After a trial on July 1, 2025, at which all parties were present and
self-represented, this court, by order dated July 11, 2025,
awarded Grandmother sole legal custody and primary physical
custody of Child, with up to three hours per month of
professionally supervised visitation for Father if, in the sole
discretion of Grandmother, and after consultation with [] Child,
Grandmother deemed it in [] Child’s best interests.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/25, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization, bold, and

italics omitted; some footnotes omitted).

-2-
J-S04015-26

Father filed a timely notice of appeal1 and he and the trial court both

complied with Rule 1925. On October 2, 2025, Father filed with this Court an

application for relief seeking permission to file an amended Rule 1925(b)

statement to include claims related to the trial court’s determination as to

Grandmother’s standing.2 This Court granted Father’s application and directed

the trial court to file a supplemental opinion addressing Father’s additional

---

1 In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court suggests that Father’s appeal

should be quashed, as he filed his notice of appeal on August 12, 2025, thirty-
two days after the date of the order appealed from. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)
(notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after entry of order).
However, while the trial court’s order is dated July 11, 2025, the docket
indicates that Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice was not given until July 14, 2025. “In civil
actions, the 30-day appeal period begins to run from the date the
prothonotary memorializes that it provided notice of the order to the parties
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236.” Smithson v. Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource,
264 A.3d 755, 759 (Pa. Super. 2021), citing Pa.R.A.P. 108(a) (explaining
“date of entry of an order . . . shall be the day on which the clerk makes the
notation in the docket that notice of entry of the order has been given as
required by [Rule] 236(b)”). Accordingly, Father’s notice of appeal was timely
filed.

2 After the trial court determined that Grandmother had standing to seek
custody, Father filed a petition to modify or vacate the court’s standing order.
By order filed on May 30, 2025, the court denied Father’s petition. Father
filed an appeal of that order, which appeal was ultimately quashed as
interlocutory on September 11, 2025. After Father filed his notice of appeal
of the May 30, 2025 order, but before this Court issued the quashal order, the
trial court entered its final custody order on July 14, 2025. When Father filed
his Rule 1925(b) statement relating to his appeal of that order, he did not
include issues related to Grandmother’s standing, as his earlier appeal of the
standing order had yet to be decided. Thus, on October 2, 2025, Father filed
his application for relief seeking to supplement his original Rule 1925(b)
statement in the instant appeal.

-3-
J-S04015-26

claims. The trial court filed its supplemental opinion on November 6, 2025.

Father raises the following claims for our review:

1. Did the trial court err by not articulating its rationale behind its
   decision when issuing its final custody order?

2. Did the trial court err by not issuing a contemporaneous
   opinion until [Father] filed his notice of appeal?

3. Did the evidence of record support the trial court’s contention
   that granting [Grandmother] sole legal and [primary] physical
   custody would be in the best interests of [Child]?

4. Did the trial court err by not properly investigating the
   adequacy of the home environment being offered by the parties
   involved?

5. Did the trial court err by not properly evaluating the fitness of
   the people who could potentially be responsible for the care of
   [Child] in the absence of his parents?

6. At the May 28, 2025 hearing on the issue of [Grandmother’s]
   standing[,] should the text messages have been admitted in as
   evidence without proper authentication?

7. At the May 28, 2025 hearing[,] should the text messages have
   been admitted in as evidence even though they were h[ear]say?

8. Did the evidence of record support the trial court’s
   determination that [Grandmother] started her relationship with
   [Child] with the consent of his parents?

9. Did the evidence of record support the trial court’s
   determination that there was parental abuse, neglect[,] or drug
   or alcohol abuse?

Brief of Appellant, at 5.

When deciding an appeal from a custody order, we apply the following

scope and standard of review:

[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

-4-
J-S04015-26

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.

C.M. v. M.M., 215 A.3d 588, 591 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation and ellipses

omitted). “In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the

evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge[,] who viewed and

assessed the witnesses first-hand.” S.C.B. v. J.S.B., 218 A.3d 905, 913 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

As with all custody-related matters, this Court’s “paramount concern is

the best interest of the child involved.” Rogowski v. Kirven, 291 A.3d 50,

61 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation and brackets omitted). “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) (citation omitted). To that

end, the Child Custody Act3 sets forth factors that a court must consider prior

to modifying an existing custody order. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). “All of

the best interest factors . . . are required to be considered by the trial court

when entering a custody order.” D.Q. v. K.K., 241 A.3d 1112, 1118 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation and brackets omitted). We have held that subsection

5323(d) of the Act “requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory

---

3 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340.

-5-
J-S04015-26

assessment of the . . . factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must

file a notice of appeal.” C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Father’s first two issues are related and, as such, we will address them

together. Father argues that the trial court committed reversible error by

failing to explain the rationale for its custody decision in the final custody order

and waiting until it issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion to address the sixteen

custody factors set forth in subsection 5328(a). Father claims that the trial

court put him in an “untenable position of having to navigate the initial stages

of the appellate process blind,” Brief of Appellant, at 22, quoting C.B., 65 A.3d

at 953, by “failing to delineate its rationale until one[ ]month after [Father]

was required to file his notice of appeal and concise statement.” Brief of

Appellant, at 22. As a result, Father asserts that he “had to guess at the exact

reasons behind the trial court’s decision[.]” Id.

As noted above, section 5328 of the Child Custody Act sets forth sixteen

factors a trial court must consider in making an award of custody. Section

5323 mandates that, when the trial court awards custody, it “shall delineate

the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a written opinion

or order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Section 5323 does not, however, specify

the point in time at which the court must comply with this requirement. In

C.B., supra, this Court held that subsection 5323(d) requires the trial court

to set forth its mandatory assessment of the sixteen custody factors prior to

the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal, thus

enabling parties and attorneys to make an informed decision whether to

-6-
J-S04015-26

appeal and to take steps to preserve their claims in a Rule 1925(b) concise

statement. C.B., 65 A.3d at 955; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) (requiring

concise statements in children’s fast track appeals be filed contemporaneously

with notice of appeal).

Here, at the conclusion of the custody hearing, the trial court did not

make any findings in open court but, rather, took the matter under

advisement and informed the parties that it would issue a decision in “up to

15 days[.]” N.T. Custody Hearing, 7/1/25, at 186. The court’s July 11, 2025

final custody order did not include any discussion of the sixteen custody

factors. Rather, the court simply noted in a footnote that “[t]his order is

entered after the presentation of testimony and evidence of each party

pursuant to [section] 5328 and after consideration of all of the relevant factors

in determining the best interests of [C]hild.” Final Custody Order, 7/11/25,

at 2 n.3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Since the trial court did not delineate its analysis of the subsection

5328(a) factors in open court or in an opinion filed before the time Father was

required to file his notice of appeal, it failed to comply with the requirements

of subsection 5323(d) and C.B., supra, leaving Father to speculate as to the

reasons behind its decision. Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate the

order and remand the case to the trial court for the entry of a new final custody

order which includes the court’s consideration and assessment of the

subsection 5328(a) factors. The court shall file its new final custody order

within 20 days of the date that the certified record is returned to the trial

-7-
J-S04015-26

court. Father may then seek relief in this Court by filing a notice of appeal,

and contemporaneous Rule 1925(b) statement, from the new order. See

Potts v. Potts, 344 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2025) (Table) (vacating custody

order and remanding for entry of new order where court did not set forth

analysis of subsection 5328(a) factors in open court or file opinion before time

for taking appeal).4

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Date: 3/2/2026

---

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1), (2) (unpublished non-precedential memorandum

decisions of this Court filed after May 1, 2019 may be cited for persuasive
value).

-8-