LATOYA L. BRICKUS vs. RAYMOND T. DENT

LATOYA L. BRICKUS vs. RAYMOND T. DENT No. 1648 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 183 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 10/1/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered May 11, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations, No. 1358 N 1999
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Appellant, Latoya L. Brickus (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which declined to implement the hearing officer’s report and recommendation to increase the support obligation of Appellee, Raymond T. Dent (“Father”), in accordance with amended state support guidelines. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

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

M.A.T. v. G.S.T.

M.A.T. v. G.S.T. No. 1517 MDA 2008 2010 PA Super 8 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/21/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered August 11, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Civil Division at No. 2006 CV 4571 CU
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant M.A.T. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 denying her petition for modification of a custody order granting Appellee G.S.T. (“Father”) primary physical custody of their daughter K.J.T. (“Daughter”). The trial court based its decision on (1) its application of an evidentiary presumption against a homosexual parent, see, e.g., Constant A. v. Paul C.A., 496 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1985); and (2) rejection of uncontroverted expert testimony recommending shared custody. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the trial court’s order and grant Mother’s petition for modification of the custody order. In doing so, we overrule the holding and reasoning in Constant. We further rule that the trial court in this case abused its discretion in rejecting the recommendations of the jointly retained custody evaluator and basing its decision to award primary physical custody to Father upon the trial court’s personal opinion that shared custody is seldom (if ever) in the best interests of school-age children. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 and remand for entry of an order consistent with this Opinion.

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