Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] W.H. v. A.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 24, 2014



Appeal from the Order Entered August 21, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No(s): S-572-2012




Appellant, A.B. (Mother), appeals from the August 21, 2013 order granting sole legal and primary physical custody of Mother's son, J.B. a/k/a J.R., to Appellees, W.H. and S.H. (Maternal Grandparents).[1] After careful review, we affirm.

We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history as follows. Mother and J.R. (Father) are the biological parents of J.B., born in January 2010.[2] Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/13, at 1, 4. Mother also has a daughter, K.B., born in June 1999.[3] Id. at 4.

Maternal Grandparents have been actively involved in the rearing of Mother's children, specifically J.B. Id. at 13. Shortly after J.B.'s birth, Maternal Grandparents took custody of J.B. to ensure his safety. Id. at 13. J.B. lived with Maternal Grandparents from January 2010 through January 2012, and Mother had custody of J.B. on most, but not all, weekends.[4] Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/12, at 2. The parties never reduced this custody arrangement to writing.

In January 2012, Mother expressed a desire to have more contact with J.B. Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/13, at 13. Maternal Grandparents complied with Mother's request. Id. Shortly thereafter, Maternal Grandparents obtained knowledge that Mother was planning to move to Florida. Id. As Mother had no family or employment in Florida, Maternal Grandparents were concerned for the safety and wellbeing of J.B. Id. Accordingly, they filed the instant custody action on March 16, 2012. Id. As part of the custody action, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition for special relief requesting primary legal and physical custody of J.B. until the culmination of the custody proceedings. As Maternal Grandparents were unable to serve Father with their complaint and petition, the trial court did not conduct a hearing on their petition for special relief until after Mother moved to Florida. Trial Court Order, 4/26/12, at 1-2.

Mother left Pennsylvania on the evening of April 1, 2012. Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/13, at 3, 5. Mother asked one of her friends, R.W., to accompany her on the trip because "she was depressed and concerned about driving to Florida alone with the children." Id. at 5. Before leaving the Commonwealth, Mother and R.W. burglarized a home of a drug dealer, obtaining drugs, money, and possibly a gun. Id. at 3-4, 5. This incident occurred in the early-morning of April 1, 2012. Id. at 5. Mother and R.W. committed these acts because R.W. wanted money to go to Florida. Id. R.W. then traveled with Mother, J.B., and K.B. to Florida that evening. Id. at 6. R.W. stayed in Florida with the family for a short time before returning to Pennsylvania. Id. at 7.

On April 16, 2012, Maternal Grandparents filed a second petition for special relief. Within that complaint, Maternal Grandparents requested primary legal and physical custody of J.B., as a criminal complaint was filed against Mother pertaining to the April 1, 2012 incident. Specifically, Maternal Grandparents were concerned that J.B. would be taken into custody of Florida's Department of Children's Services if Mother was arrested in Florida. Id.

In early May 2012, Mother drove with J.B. and K.B. back to Pennsylvania. Id. at 7. Mother drove to Pennsylvania to transport R.W. back to Florida. Id. At that time, Mother knew that there were outstanding warrants for both her and R.W.'s arrest. Id. Mother also picked up A.P., A.P.'s girlfriend, and A.P.'s child while in Pennsylvania to transport them to Florida as well. Id. A.P. was a convicted felon. Id. at 8. Once back in Florida, Mother, J.B., K.B., R.W., A.P., A.P.'s girlfriend, and A.P.'s child all resided in Mother's two-bedroom home. Id. at 7.

On May 9, 2012, Mother and R.W. were arrested in Florida. Id. J.B. was present during the arrest. Id. When police searched Mother's home, they found two handguns that Mother was planning to sell at a pawn shop. Id. Following Mother's arrest, J.B. was placed with L.I.G., Paternal Grandmother, who lives in Florida. Id. We note K.B. remained in the Florida home with A.P.'s girlfriend, as Paternal Grandmother was of no relation to K.B. Id. A.P. was also arrested on an outstanding warrant while in Florida. Id.

On May 11, 2012, the trial court entered an order regarding Maternal Grandparents' March and April petitions for special relief. On that date, the trial court denied Maternal Grandparents' March 16, 2012 petition, concluding that Mother had both an adequately furnished apartment in Florida and sources of income. Trial Court Order, 5/11/12. Yet, the trial court granted Maternal Grandparents' April 16, 2012 petition, concluding that J.B. was in imminent danger of being placed with a child protective service agency in Florida. Id. Accordingly, the trial court entered an interim custody order granting Mother and Maternal Grandparents legal custody of J.B. and Maternal Grandparents primary physical custody. Id. Mother's periods of partial physical custody were to be exercised at times agreed upon by the parties. Id. Following the entry of this order, Maternal Grandparents retrieved J.B. and K.B., from Florida. Id. at 7-8. Maternal Grandparents testified that Mother's Florida home was dirty. Id. at 8.

On July 30, 2012, the parties entered into a stipulated custody order.[5]The order retained primary physical custody of J.B. with Maternal Grandparents. However, the order granted Mother partial physical custody every Tuesday to Wednesday, and, on alternating weekends, from Friday to Sunday. Mother also obtained custody on alternating weeks from Sunday to Monday, to occur following Mother's non-custodial weekend. This custody arrangement was in place at the time of the parties' custody trial. Appellant's Brief at 6 n.3.

The trial court held a hearing on Maternal Grandparents' custody petition on August 5-6, 2013. During this hearing, Mother testified as to the circumstances surrounding this custody action. Initially, we note that the trial court concluded that "much of the testimony offered by Mother throughout the entire trial was often vague, deceptive or simply not credible." Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/13, at 5. Maternal Grandparents and a custody evaluator, Dr. S., among others, testified as well. We summarize the pertinent testimony as follows.

Mother presently lives in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Id. at 2. Mother owns her home. Id. However, when the custody evaluator performed home studies, Mother was residing in her Step Mother's home in Schuylkill County. Id. at 2-3. Accordingly, Mother's current home was not evaluated for custody purposes. Id. at 2. Also, Mother is employed by a taxi service. Id. at 4. Mother works from 5:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; Mother additionally works on some Sundays. Id.

"Mother has an extensive criminal record and for years has associated with others involved in illegal drug use and criminal activity, including felons convicted of violent crimes." Id. at 3; see also id. at 5-7, 8-9. Mother's most recent arrest arose out of the April 1, 2012 incident. Following that incident, Mother was in police custody from May 9, 2012 through June 29, 2012. Id. at 4. On July 25, 2013, Mother pled guilty to felony criminal trespass and was sentenced to five years' probation. Id. at 3. The Commonwealth dismissed the more serious charges against Mother in light of her cooperation in the prosecution of R.W. Id. at 3-4. Mother also pled guilty to driving under the influence (highest rate of alcohol) in 2009; possession of a controlled substance in 2008; and theft, receiving stolen property (four counts), theft by unlawful taking, intentionally possessing a controlled substance, and forgery in 1997. Id. at 3. Additionally, in 2012, Mother pled guilty to driving a motor vehicle without being properly licensed. Id. at 10. Mother also admitted that when she obtained her DUI in 2009, she was driving with a suspended license. Id.

"Mother report[ed] that she started using illegal drugs when she was [18] years old. [She] claims that she is sober now, although she [still] consumes alcohol[.]" Id. at 11. Mother testified that she no longer wanted to get high after J.B. was born. Id. Mother testified that she last used marijuana in 2012. Id. at 4, 11. Mother was under the influence of both alcohol and ecstasy when arrested in 2009. Id. at 4. Mother obtained some counseling after this conviction. Additionally, Mother attended outpatient counseling in 2006. Mother's 1997 convictions involved marijuana, cocaine, and crack cocaine. Mother entered an inpatient rehabilitation center for some time in 1997. Id. Mother claimed she used drugs to escape her reality, specifically, to escape from Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 11.

The trial court also received volumes of testimony regarding Maternal Grandparents safeguarding Mother's money for her, as Mother was impulsive in her spending. Id. at 11-12.

Maternal Grandmother reported that Mother is physically abusive towards both J.B. and K.B. Id. at 14. Specifically, "[Maternal] Grandmother has seen Mother smack [K.B.] in the face and pull her hair and smack [J.B.] so hard that he has been left with handprints on his body." Id. Additionally, Mother "yells and curses in front of the children." Id. J.B. has used vulgar language in front of Maternal Grandmother after returning from Mother's care. Id.

Maternal Grandmother also noted concern regarding Mother's stability. Throughout the course of these proceedings, Mother has resided in both Florida and Berks County. Id. at 14. Additionally, Mother has moved since her return to Pennsylvania, causing K.B. to change school districts. Id.

Mother also has a history of mental health issues. Id. Of most concern to the trial court was Mother's claimed depression on or around April 1, 2012. Id. Mother did not obtain treatment during this time. Id. Instead, Mother travelled with R.W. and her children to Florida. Id. at 5.

Additionally, Dr. S., an expert psychologist and custody evaluator, testified regarding Mother's mental health. "Dr. S[.] found Mother to have anti-social traits and that [she] had difficulties showing affection and nurturing." Id. at 16. Dr. S. also concluded that "Mother had limited parenting skills, slight knowledge of [J.B. and K.B.], and determined that [K.B.] had been told by Mother to provide negative information to [him] about [Maternal] Grandmother." Id. Accordingly, "Dr. S. recommended that [Maternal] Grandparents have primary custody of [J.B.] and that Mother exercise custody every other weekend, but not overnight, as [Dr. S.] was concerned for the safety of [J.B.]" Id.

Thereafter, on August 21, 2013, the trial court entered an order awarding Maternal Grandparents sole legal and primary physical custody of J.B. On August 28, 2013, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. Mother filed her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b) on September 11, 2013.[6] The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 1, 2013.

On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review.

[1.] Whether the trial court misapplied 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5329 and abused its discretion when it stripped []Mother of unsupervised visitations with her minor child for criminal convictions [of] drug possession and DUI that happened prior to [J.B.]'s birth and without a finding that Mother poses a current and/or continuing threat of harm to [J.B.?]
[2.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that []Maternal Grandparents met their statutory burden by clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that between a natural parent and a third party, custody shall be awarded to the parent, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5327[?]
[3.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by considering []Mother's criminal history and past conduct that occurred prior to [J.B.]'s birth instead of []Mother's current circumstance in determining the relevant factors to the best interest of [J.B.], pursuant to [23] Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)[?]

Mother's Brief at 4.

At the outset, we note that Mother's issues are interrelated. Herein, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Maternal Grandparents sole legal and primary physical custody of J.B. because they did not overcome the well-established legal presumption that a natural parent should be awarded primary custody over third parties, by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 16-18. Mother supports this argument by averring the trial court erred as a matter of law in evaluating certain factors and abused its discretion by weighing some factors more heavily than others. Id. at 14-16, 18-21. Accordingly, we will address Mother's issues concomitantly.

Our scope and standard of review of an appeal from a custody order is as follows.

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. 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. However, we are not bound by the trial court's deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.

V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1197 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

[T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.

A.H. v. C.M., 58 A.3d 823, 825 (Pa.Super. 2012), quoting Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa.Super. 2006).

The primary concern in any custody case is the best interests of the child. "The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual wellbeing." Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2006), citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super. 2004).

We must accept the trial court's findings that are supported by competent evidence of record, and we defer to the trial court on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence. If competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa.Super. 2003).

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

S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621, 623 (Pa.Super. 2002), quoting Robinson v. Robinson, 645 A.2d 836, 838 (Pa. 1994).

Instantly, the new Child Custody Act ("Act"), 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321– 5340, applies to this action because Maternal Grandparents filed their custody petition after January 24, 2011, the effective date of the new law. See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76 (Pa.Super. 2011). Section 5328 of the Act sets forth certain factors a trial court must consider in order to determine the best interest of the child when awarding custody. Specifically, Section 5328 provides as follows.

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.-In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including the following:
(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.
(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.
(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and (2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services).
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life and community life.
(5)The availability of extended family.
(6)The child's sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.
(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.
(10)Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
(12) Each party's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.
14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's household.
(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's household. (16)Any other relevant factor. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16).

Section 5329 of the Act also requires the trial court to consider the criminal convictions of a party, or member of the party's household, when awarding custody. Section 5329 provides, in pertinent part, as follows.

§ 5329. Consideration of criminal conviction.

(a) Offenses. --Where a party seeks any form of custody, the court shall consider whether that party or member of that party's household has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty or no contest to any of the offenses in this section or an offense in another jurisdiction substantially equivalent to any of the offenses in this section. The court shall consider such conduct and determine that the party does not pose a threat of harm to the child before making any order of custody to that parent when considering the following offenses
The former 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance).
75 Pa.C.S. Ch. 38 (relating to driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing drugs).
Section 13(a)(1) of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, to the extent that it prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery, holding, offering for sale or possession of any controlled substance or other drug or device.
(c) Initial evaluation. --At the initial in-person contact with the court, the judge, conference officer or other appointed individual shall perform an initial evaluation to determine whether the party or household member who committed an offense under subsection (a) poses a threat to the child and whether counseling is necessary. The initial evaluation shall not be conducted by a mental health professional. After the initial evaluation, the court may order further evaluation or counseling by a mental health professional if the court determines it is necessary.


(1) Where the court determines under subsection (c) that counseling is necessary, it shall appoint a qualified professional specializing in treatment relating to the particular offense to provide counseling to the offending individual.
(2) Counseling may include a program of treatment or individual therapy designed to rehabilitate the offending individual which addresses, but is not limited to, issues regarding physical and sexual abuse, the psychology of the offender and the effects of the offense on the victim.
(e)Subsequent evaluation.
(1) At any time during or subsequent to the counseling under subsection (d), the court may require another evaluation to determine whether further counseling is necessary.
(2) If the court awards custody to a party who committed an offense under subsection (a) or who shares a household with an individual who committed an offense under subsection (a), the court may require subsequent evaluations on the rehabilitation of the offending individual and the well-being of the child subsequent to the order. If, upon review of a subsequent evaluation, the court determines that the offending individual poses a threat of physical, emotional or psychological harm to the child, the court may schedule a hearing to modify the custody order.

Id. at § 5329.

Initially, we note that the trial court's August 21, 2013 opinion presented a complete assessment of the 16 best interest factors enumerated in Section 5328(a), and Mother's criminal convictions pursuant to Section 5329. See C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa.Super. 2013) (holding that the trial court must set forth its assessment of the 16 best interest factors outlined in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)), appeal denied, 70 A.3d 808 (Pa. 2013). However, the crux of Mother's claim pertains to well-established legal principal that natural parents have a rebuttable presumption against third parties in custody disputes. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5327(b) (codifying the then-existing common law presumption). Regarding this presumption, the Act states as follows.

§ 5327. Presumption in cases concerning primary physical custody.

(b) Between a parent and third party.--In any action regarding the custody of the child between a parent of the child and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that custody shall be awarded to the parent. The presumption in favor of the parent may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

Id. "Clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193, 1199 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

Regarding this presumption, we have concluded as follows.
[O]ur Supreme Court [has] noted that "these principles do not preclude an award of custody to a non-parent. Rather they simply instruct the [trial] judge that the non-parent bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and that the non-parent's burden is heavy."

Id., quoting Ellerbe v. Hooks, 416 A.2d 512, 514 (Pa. 1980).

What the [trial] judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child's best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party's side.

V.B., supra at 1199. Accordingly, we recognize that when a grandparent is involved in a custody dispute with a parent, the grandparent is a third party and bears this heightened burden. Id. at 1198-1199, citing Charles v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa. 2000), cert. denied, Stehlik v. Charles, 530 U.S. 1243 (2000).

Instantly, Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that Maternal Grandparents met this heightened burden. Mother's Brief at 16-18. Upon weighing the relevant factors, the trial court found Maternal Grandparents met the heightened burden, and supported its finding as follows.

Much of the evidence in this case was extremely troubling. In addition, there are many questions that are unanswered, including exactly what the underlying facts were with regard to Mother's driving under the influence and drug offenses. In addition – although not convicted – Mother readily acknowledged that she used a panoply of drugs quite heavily. Further, verbally and physically abusive conduct toward [J.B. and K.B.] by Mother was established via testimony of [Maternal] Grandmother.
Consequently, the [trial c]ourt does not have sufficient evidence to award unsupervised physical custody of any nature to Mother[. H]er actions dictate that sole legal custody be placed with [Maternal] Grandparents. Prior to an award of unsupervised physical custody being considered, Mother must obtain an evaluation by an appropriate mental health professional to determine the extent of treatment and/or counseling necessary relative to mental health concerns – including antisocial personality traits and possible depression – her drug/alcohol use, convictions therefore, and verbal/physical abuse directed toward [J.B. and K.B.] Moreover, in light of Mother's disregard of the law, her tendency to engage in relationships with people who have been involved in drug use and other criminal activity, in particular, violent criminal activity, the [trial c]ourt is not confident that Mother will provide a safe home for [J.B.] at this time. Notably, Mother appeared to and did dismiss concerns about violent felons being in the company of her children, including [R.W.], with his two handguns in Florida – by, for example, rationalizing that the men had not displayed violence when in the presence of the children. Mother's attitude on the matter, exhibited during her evaluation with Dr. S[.] – was confirmed by her trial testimony.
Mother has agreed to attend counseling recommended by Dr. S[.], who did, however, express little hope that it would be successful in changing Mother's antisocial attitudes and conduct. Mother presented as an intelligent and, at times, industrious woman who – if properly focused – may be quite capable of providing a nurturing home for [J.B.] However, the [trial c]ourt believes the best interests of [J.B.] will be served by entering the custody order attached hereto which [grants Maternal Grandparents with sole legal and primary physical custody of J.B. and] provides Mother the opportunity to liberally see [J.B.] on a frequent basis under supervision to assure his safety, with transportation to be shared to accommodate the visits. Mother will be directed to obtain the pertinent evaluations, follow any recommended counseling and treatment, and, thereby, afford her the chance to ultimately obtain unsupervised, if not primary, custody of her [J.B.]12
12 The evaluation should, per [23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5329], have been directed [to be completed] following the initial contact in this case with a conference/hearing officer. However, due to reasons not explained in the record, such did not occur. Consequently, the [trial c]ourt finds it duty-bound by statute and case law to so direct at this time.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/13, at 27-28 (footnote in original).

A review of the trial court's opinion, together with the certified record in this matter, reveals the record supports the trial court's custody finding in favor of Maternal Grandparents. During the two-day hearing, the trial court received testimony regarding Mother's past drug abuse, criminal record, and mental state. To the extent that Mother argues that the trial court improperly considered her past alcohol and drug use, we conclude this issue meritless as "[t]he history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party" is one of the 16 factors listed in Section 5328. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(14). Beyond Mother's drug use, the trial court was concerned that Mother chose to move to Florida with her children during a state of depression, instead of getting the medical help that she needed. The trial court heard about Mother's impulsive personality, which required Maternal Grandparents to monitor her spending for the better part of her life. In conjunction with Mother's impulsivity, the trial court heard testimony regarding Mother's moves from the Commonwealth to Florida and back, in addition to various moves within the Commonwealth. All of these moves took place during the academic year when Mother's oldest child was of school age. Since the custody petition was filed in 2012, Mother was arrested, in front of her children, and incarcerated for approximately one month. In addition, since the filing of the petition, Mother has associated with a number of convicted felons and had her children around these individuals. To wit, Mother has transported a number of individuals with outstanding arrest warrants across state lines to live with her in Florida. Considering the totality of this testimony, we conclude that the trial court's finding that Maternal Grandparents met their burden by clear and convincing evidence is "[]reasonable as shown by the evidence of record." See In re V.B., supra at 1197. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its custody determination.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude Mother's issue is devoid of merit. Therefore, we affirm the August 21, 2013 order granting Maternal Grandparents sole legal and primary physical custody of J.B.

Order affirmed.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.