Reed v. Reed, an enchantment determined Wednesday by the Pennsylvania Superior Courtroom (Decide Mary Jane Bowes, joined by Judges Mary Murray and Jill Beck), concerned a paternal grandfather in search of shared authorized custody and partial bodily custody of two youngsters (N.R. and M.R., ages 8 and 10 as of the time of the appellate resolution). Many states permit grandparents shared custody in some conditions, particularly when their baby (the grandchildren’s mum or dad) is lifeless, as was the case right here. However, to oversimplify to some extent, they typically require some displaying of failings on the a part of the opposite mum or dad.
On this case, the trial court docket did certainly rule for the grandfather, however the appellate court docket disagreed. An excerpt from the trial court docket’s opinion (different parts of the trial court docket’s opinion are mentioned by the appellate opinion, so I have not excerpted them right here, however you’ll be able to see much more here):
On the custody listening to on March 3, 2025, [Mother] testified that her good friend Joanna, who’s a member of the “Biker Church” in Boyertown, P[ennsylvania], traveled “in spirit” to [Paternal Grandfather]’s house in California, the place she noticed [Paternal Grandfather] and his spouse speak about [Paternal Grandfather] reporting [Mother] to OCY.
When requested by this Courtroom whether or not Joanna had any historical past of psychological well being remedy or prison background, [Mother] replied, “Nope.” [Mother] additional testified that her youngsters and God are ranked equally by way of significance in her life, nevertheless, [Paternal Grandfather]’s counsel provided into proof a video from [Mother]’s YouTube channel, the place [Mother] acknowledged that God comes earlier than her youngsters. When requested by [Paternal Grandfather]’s counsel whether or not she receives cues from God concerning her youngsters, [Mother] indicated that she is “led to do sure issues primarily based on [her] religion with God.” When requested by [Paternal Grandfather]’s counsel whether or not [Mother] is guided by voices or directions, she merely acknowledged, “Not essentially. Form of like you’re going to get an intuition to do one thing, or your intestine feeling about doing one thing.” Notably, [Mother] testified that she has by no means had any form of psychological well being prognosis and isn’t prepared to be examined as she doesn’t “really feel it’s a necessity” and has “no issues in any respect for [her] psychological well being.” …
The trial court docket granted Grandfather shared authorized custody, which required a discovering that substantial danger of parental neglect was proved by the statutorily required clear and convincing proof; the appellate court docket disagreed. An excerpt from the lengthy appellate opinion:
[T]he court docket discovered that Mom “has little interest in offering a correct schooling and is neglecting to appropriately educate her youngsters.” It moreover acknowledged that Mom “barely had a highschool diploma” and felt that Mom’s need to homeschool the kids was to fulfill her personal spiritual beliefs and private wishes above the tutorial wants of the ladies. The court docket indicated that it was uneasy concerning the homeschooling schedule supplied by Mom, because it entailed fewer hours of formal schooling than these undertaken by college students in public colleges, and believed that M.R. was “miserably failing in a number of topic areas and is barely assembly the kid testing requirement of 35%.”
The court docket additionally expressed its concern that Mom allowed the kids’s medical insurance coverage to lapse for a interval of three months and decides to take medical and dental recommendation from movies she has seen on YouTube. The court docket’s opinion moreover directed us to its earlier written resolution, whereby it mentioned that Mom declined for N.R. to obtain the second MMR vaccine dose really useful by the Facilities for Illness Management and that one of many medical paperwork entered into proof listed N.R. as being “overdue” for an audiology appointment. The court docket confirmed uncertainty as as to if the ladies have been receiving correct dental care, discovering that it was not definitively confirmed via the admitted displays. Lastly, it highlighted the testimony that Mom solely permits her youngsters to make the most of fluoride-free toothpaste….
Upon de novo evaluate, we decide that … Paternal Grandfather didn’t display that the ladies have been “considerably in danger resulting from parental abuse, neglect, drug or alcohol abuse or incapacity.” Regarding the adequacy of the ladies’ schooling supplied by Mom, we preliminarily word that homeschooling is statutorily permissible underneath Pennsylvania regulation. The court docket didn’t discover, and our evaluate doesn’t bear out, that Mom’s homeschooling program fails to adjust to the regulation the least bit…. Dr. McKeon [Mother’s homeschool evaluator] famous that Mom appropriately logged the minimal variety of schooling days and had yearly submitted the paperwork required by the native faculty district for homeschooling compliance. Mom’s testimony was that she averages roughly three and one-half hours a day of direct schoolwork using a business curriculum from Christian Mild Schooling, with Dr. McKeon confirming that this comports with the quantity of instruction she observes from lots of the households of the 600 college students that she oversees.
We additionally agree with Mom that the court docket’s characterization of M.R.’s standardized check rating as “miserably failing” or “barely passing” is unsupported. A standardized testing rating putting her within the thirty-fourth percentile total signifies that M.R. carried out higher on the examination than one-third of similarly-aged college students nationwide. Mom has undisputedly taken steps to handle M.R.’s difficulties with studying and spelling by offering her with a tutor, whom she sees weekly. We additional word that M.R.’s math and basic information scores demonstrated that she is superior for her present grade degree by roughly a 12 months.
Equally, we can not conclude that there’s evidentiary help for the notion that Mom has positioned the ladies at substantial danger of neglect regarding their well being. Paternal Grandfather offered no proof that having the kids brush their enamel with fluoride-free toothpaste would topic them to hurt, or that both lady has any points regarding her enamel or gums. The identical holds true for Mom’s resolution to not have N.R. immunized with the second shot of the MMR vaccine. Lastly, the file helps Mom’s competition that she has been tending to N.R.’s wants because it pertains to her listening to support and vital audiology appointments….
As to the award of partial bodily custody, which by Pennsylvania regulation was ruled by a considerably completely different commonplace, the appellate court docket concluded that the trial court docket confirmed sufficient “partiality and bias by the trial court docket” to justify reversal:
To start, the file demonstrates that the court docket overstepped its bounds in questioning witnesses, typically interrogating them for prolonged lengths of time. See, e.g., N.T., 3/3/25, at 29-33 (questioning Mom’s private beliefs because it pertains to acceptance of these within the LGBTQ+ neighborhood); id. at 52-54 (chastising Mom for failing to well timed submit medical insurance coverage paperwork on behalf of the kids); id. at 136-56 (extensively inquiring into the {qualifications} of skilled witness, Dr. McKeon, and the deserves of homeschooling extra typically, after Paternal Grandfather’s counsel accomplished his voir dire); N.T., 3/13/25, at 47-50 (compelling Dr. McKeon to elucidate why the Peabody standardized examination, authorized by the Commonwealth for homeschooled college students, is nearly as good a measure of capability in comparison with assessments taken by public faculty college students); N.T., 4/11/25, at 17-22 (difficult Mom’s resolution to not have N.R. obtain the second shot of the MMR vaccine); id. at 65-67 (similar as to Mom’s option to brush the kids’s enamel with fluoride-free toothpaste); id. at 88-92 (urgent Mom to elucidate why it’s problematic for Paternal Grandfather to permit the ladies to look at Disney films); id. at 93-95 (similar as to Mom not allowing her daughters to learn the Harry Potter e book collection); id. at 97-99 (questioning why Mom defined the circumstances of Father’s loss of life to her daughters as a substitute of permitting a therapist to take action); id. at 122-31 (interrogating Mom about her schedule for homeschooling the kids).
Many of those exchanges, primarily based on the amount of the court docket’s questions, its refusal to just accept solutions as given, and its tone, portrayed the court docket as an advocate in opposition to Mom…. “Though the regulation is obvious {that a} trial choose might interrogate a witness, the choose shouldn’t assume the function of an advocate, categorical an opinion on the deserves of the case or forged doubt on the witness’ credibility.” … For instance, when Mom defined that she didn’t need her daughters studying Harry Potter resulting from its subject material involving witches, the court docket referred to as a recess and directed Mom to evaluate the Bible accessible inside the courtroom to find verses supporting her notion that the Bible speaks out in opposition to witchcraft and magic.
The court docket additional devoted vital time to questioning Mom’s character witness, Ms. Oliveri, after Paternal Grandfather’s counsel accomplished cross-examination. Significantly, it directed Paternal Grandfather’s counsel to re-display displays beforehand admitted throughout the hearings and confronted her about statements made by Mom in sure YouTube movies, straight difficult Ms. Olivieri’s testimony because it associated to Mom’s spiritual convictions about whether or not Jesus accepts these inside the LGBTQ+ neighborhood.
The file can be affected by judicial feedback and questions that appeared outright hostile to Mom, her counsel, Mom’s spiritual affiliation, and the homeschooling system on the whole. In response to a comment from Mom that homeschooling is just not the identical as public faculty within the house setting, the court docket acknowledged: “I believe that that is clear to everyone.” On one other event, when Mom testified that her daughters obtained counseling, the court docket requested the place and interjected, with obvious exasperation: “Please do not inform me The Biker Church.”
After Mom acknowledged that she didn’t really feel it was essential to go to her native faculty to find out what it presents as a result of she didn’t need to ship M.R. and N.R. there, the court docket retorted: “You do not really feel it’s a necessity to coach your self on that the general public faculty system has to supply your youngsters by way of an schooling?” Counsel lodged an objection to this line of questioning, citing Mom’s constitutional proper to homeschool her youngsters with out elucidation, and the court docket overtly acknowledged, “I do not care. I would like an evidence.”
Moreover, when Mom attested that she didn’t need monetary contributions from Paternal Grandfather as a result of she believed it confirmed that “he desires one other type of management within the women’ life,” the court docket turned argumentative. It then requested Mom, “do you not perceive” that Paternal Grandfather was attempting to “do what he thinks is one of the best factor for the ladies,” twice, straight contradicting Mom’s perception that Paternal Grandfather is prying into their lives.
The court docket refused to just accept Mom’s reply that she forgot to well timed submit the paperwork to safe the kids’s medical insurance coverage, asking her repetitively to elucidate why she forgot, and overtly expressed disapproval of Mom’s solutions. It additionally appeared to display robust emotions on the file with respect to Mom’s resolution to tithe cash, regardless of the kids having their necessities taken care of, in addition to Mom’s alternative to not give Paternal Grandfather the ladies’ social safety numbers primarily based on the truth that she didn’t belief him. Mom expressed on the stand that she felt the court docket was putting her spiritual beliefs on trial, to which the court docket abruptly minimize her off mid-sentence.
Moreover, the court docket advised Mom’s legal professional on quite a few events to “sit down” or “have a seat” after making objections to lots of the factors mentioned above. This was performed at the side of the court docket explaining that it independently researched counsel’s regulation agency web site to substantiate whether or not he’s a Christian lawyer after accusations from Paternal Grandfather on the stand that counsel practices “Christian regulation” and is “cultish.” …
Lastly, we contemplate the court docket’s custody order insofar because it directed Mom to endure a psychological well being analysis…. [T]his requirement was included within the ultimate custody order after [custody] was resolved and doesn’t even require that the outcomes be supplied to the court docket. It’s thus clear that the court docket ordered the analysis to not profit it in making its resolution, however fairly to topic Mom to an examination which will by no means affect one other judicial dedication, primarily based solely upon Mom’s spiritual statements. When thought of on this context, mixed with the assorted examples of bias and partiality exhibited by the trial court docket all through the whole thing of those proceedings mentioned above, we decide that [the relevant rule] doesn’t help the analysis, and the court docket abused its discretion in ordering it. Therefore, we additionally vacate this portion of the order….
{Mom has not requested that this Courtroom remand the matter earlier than one other jurist…. As we can not sua sponte deal with this declare, and it can’t be raised for the primary time on enchantment, we don’t attain this concern. Ought to Mom want to pursue this, she might file a petition for recusal with the trial court docket upon remand.}
