green
Positive treatment
Hot · 80 in 5y
Issue: best-interests standardPA ↗
Issue: interests standardPA ↗
Issue: polestar analysisPA ↗
Issue: custody factorsPA ↗
Quoted verbatim 4×
162.9 score
G Cite
cited 51× by 50 distinct cases, 2014–2026 ·
…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.
at p. 512
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 36× by 36 distinct cases, 2019–2026 ·
…custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.
at p. 512
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 30× by 30 distinct cases, 2015–2023 ·
…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 well-being.
at p. 512
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
A.R. v. S.G.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
absent compelling reasons to the contrary, the policy in pennsylvania is to permit siblings, including half-siblings, to be raised together.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abromitis, T., Jr. v. Abromitis, K.
on the issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge. . . . appellate interference is allowed only where it is found that the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Garcia, A. v. Garcia, A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the policy of keeping siblings together is only a consideration and not a - 23 - j-s44035-22 determinant of custody arrangements.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
J.F. v. J.F.
the primary concern in any custody case is the best interest of the child. the best-interest 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 well-being.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fabio, T. v. Hexter, K.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Further, when this Court reviews a trial court's “best interests” analysis in custody matters, our scope of review is broad but we are “bound by findings supported in the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McElroy, N. v. Startup, A.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McElroy, N. v. Startup, A.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dilworth, A. v. Dilworth, J.
“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) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Puthuff, S. v. Ramsey, C.
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted); -4- J-A29031-25 see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker, J. v. Baker, R.
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson, D. v. Ash, C. v. Sponsler, C.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dinicola, A. v. Gryczewski, D.
“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, -6- J-A22025-25 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)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paris, A. v. Paris, N.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kingman, S. v. Teates, K.
The paramount concern in custody cases is the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a); Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henn, R. v. Celento, D.
“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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DiMarzio, D. v. DiMarzio, R.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of -4- J-A12024-25 record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Niles, K. v. Oosterkamp, Z.
There is “no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013). -9- J-A13043-25 As an appellate court, this Court must defer to the trial court unless “the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Middleton, D. v. Middleton, S.
“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) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
G.M. v. N.M.
“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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker, J. v. Baker, R.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation ____________________________________________ 2 To the extent that Father raises various additional allegations of trial court error in the argument section of his brief, those arguments are waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mack, T. v. Billups, D.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parrales, S. v. Rodriguez, S.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.B. v. M.D.
“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tornatore, M. v. Rodezno, S.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael, K. v. Michael, R.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roupe, D. v. Ficarri, A.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelsch, J. v. Kelsch, M.
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tsarouhis, D. v. Catrickes, M.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mahalik, J. v. Mahalik, H.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
White, A. v. Malecki, C.
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 ( Pa. Super. 2006), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must consider in awarding custody.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wert, O. v. Wert, J.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hayes, L. v. Santoro, A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cain, B. v. Cain, B.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T.J.N. v. K.M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.D.S. v. B.A.B.
“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all -7- J-A20034-23 factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: J.A.Z., Appeal of: P.J.J.
“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 well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Truax, A. v. Zych, E. & S.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bleam, A. v. Wynne, K.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez, S. v. Santiago, J.
“The best interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kuncelman, J. v. Kuncelman, R.
“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)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mann, V. v. Grate, R.
(2×)
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nakich, R. v. Terry, B. v. Terry, A.
“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 well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parks, R. v. Koch, E.
“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) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith, J. v. Confer, D.
“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 well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006), citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roundtree, P. v. Smith, B.
“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 well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2006)(citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lauer, A. v. Lauer, L.
“The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon -5- J-A04005-23 the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fritz, T. v. Bruce-Fritz, K.
“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 well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2006)(citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giambanco, V. v. Harriger, E. v. Giambanco, M.
“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 well[- ]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Senflug, M. v. Grebb, E.
“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) (quoting Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kovalchuk, V. v. Kovalchuk, Y.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We can interfere only where the “custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald W. MARVIN
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 28th day of July 2006, we hereby AFFIRM the Order of the Commonwealth Court.