Superior Court 7/14/08 - DARWIN OTTOLINI v. MELINDA S. BARRETT

DARWIN OTTOLINI v. MELINDA S. BARRETT
No. 1234 WDA 207 2008 PA Super 154 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/14/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 1154 of 2003
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Father, Darwin Ottolini, appeals the June 4, 2007, Order granting mother, Melinda S. Barrett, primary custody over the couple’s two minor children, Derek (DOB 12/17/1997) and Dalton (DOB 08/25/2001).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


¶ 7 Father raises the following assignments of error:

1. Did the court abuse its discretion in denying counsel, and thus [father], [the opportunity] to be present and an opportunity to participate in interviewing the two children in question; and further, not making the interview a part of the record
so that counsel could be fully aware of what was exactly stated in the interview?

2. Did the court abuse its discretion in considering Dr. Addis’ report even though the report was not entered into evidence, nor was Dr. Addis called as a witness; and that [father] objected to Dr. Addis’ report being admitted into evidence absent the
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Addis?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion by not preparing and filing findings of fact?

4. Did the court abuse its discretion by not giving proper weight to the evidence?

Our standard of review over a custody order is for a gross abuse of discretion. A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744, 746-747 (Pa.Super. 2008). If a trial court, in reaching its conclusion, overrides or misapplies the law or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or reaches a conclusion that is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will as shown by the evidence of record, then discretion is abused. Bonawits v. Bonawits, 907 A.2d 611, 614 (Pa.Super. 2006). Our scope of review over custody disputes is broad; this Court is not bound by the deductions and inferences the trial court derives from its findings of fact, nor must we accept the trial court’s findings of fact when these findings are not supported by competent evidence of record. A.J.B., supra at 746-747. Our paramount concern in child custody matters is the best interests of the children. Id. at 747.