enumerated factors in Pennsylvania

2026N.T. 7/18/25 at 30 /d at 278. 28 Id. 2, of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Page 2, 1 7. 29 See Appellant's Concise Statement of 30 Id. at9. /l. at 19. 17 York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 16 Sep 2025 04:11:18 PM 3-1925A OPINION 9-16-25 Case Number: 2015-FC-000335-03 custody)[.]" Graves when awarding custody)[.]"' Graves, 265 A.3d 688 , • Graves, Graves v. 688. 694 (Pa. Super. 2021 2021 )(emphasis added).The trial court articulate the Custody Act requires only that the trial "The Custody the reasons for its custody decision in open court or in a written opinion or order taking into considerati

2026"IT)here of detail for the trial court's explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the based on those considerations." Id. the custody decision is based Id.

2026The trial court explained: ____________________________________________ 10 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.” A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). - 30 - J-A29040-25 [P]aternal [G]randmother’s testimony seems to … be marked by a superficial understanding of the events … and an attempt to completely discount any responsibility she bears for the discord in the family.

2026See A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted) (“[T]here 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.”).

2020A trial court does not need to explain its decision in detail; rather “all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” Id. (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013)). - 15 - J-A07044-20 In child custody cases, the paramount concern “is the best interests of the child.” Id. (quoting C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 909 (Pa. 2018)).

2019However, “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). -4- J-A24026-19 “The paramount concern in child custody cases is the best interests of the child.” C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891, 909 (Pa. 2018).

2021Additionally, “[S]ection 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory assessment of the sixteen [Section 5328(a) custody] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.” C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 70 A.3d 808 ([Pa. ]2013)…. -9- J-S12031-21 In expressing the reasons for its decision, “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.3

2020Additionally, “section 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory assessment of the sixteen [Section 5328(a) custody] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.” C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 70 A.3d 808 (Pa. 2013)[.] In expressing the reasons for its decision, “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. Sup

2026Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 888 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2025Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 888 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2024As indicated supra, “[T]here 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.” R.L. v. M.A., 209 A.3d 391, 395 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013)). - 18 - J-A11024-24 to other factors that impact the [C]hildren's best interest, including factors involving stability in [the C]hildren’s community lives, the ability to make appropriate child care arrangements, the proximity of the parties residences, and t

2023However, “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.” “The paramount concern in child custody cases is the best interests of the child.” “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.” R.L., 209 A.3d at 395 (some citations omitted).

2015“All of the factors listed in [S]ection 5328(a) are required to be considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa.Super. 2011) (emphasis in original). - 51 - J-A10001-15 Nevertheless, “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), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710 , 68 A.3d 909 (2013).

2015“All of the factors listed in [S]ection 5328(a) are required to be considered by the trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa.Super. 2011) (emphasis in original). - 51 - J-A10001-15 Nevertheless, “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), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710 , 68 A.3d 909 (2013).

2026In considering the factors set forth in Section 5328(a), “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.” Taylor v. Smith, 302 A.3d 203, 208 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing, inter alia, M.J.M., 63 A.3d at 336 (citations omitted)).

2025There “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.” Id. -5- J-A19015-25 Here, Father states that he “does not understand how the [trial c]ourt came to the decision to deny his request for a change in custody.” Father’s Brief at 9.3 Father argues that the trial court “failed to adequately set forth its assessment” of six statutory custody factors.

2023While this delineation is thorough, it demonstrates not only that ____________________________________________ 3 See D.Q. v. K.K., 241 A.3d 1112, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“In expressing the reasons for its decision, ‘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.’”); see also M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“It is within the trial court’s purview as the finder of fact to determine which factors are the most salient and

2023“In expressing the reasons for its decision, 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.” D.Q., 241 A.3d at 1118 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2021See Hernandez, supra. Here, Payne asserts that his petition is timely under the newly- discovered facts exception, codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

2020See Hernandez, supra at 651-52 .

2015A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2013). - 10 - J-A08006-15 In expressing the reasons for its decision, “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), appeal denied, [ 620 Pa. 710 ], 68 A.3d 909 (2013).

2014A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 2013 PA Super 156 , 70 A.3d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2013). required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that M.J.M. 4 The Act was amended, effective January 1, 2014, to include an additional factor at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(2.1) (providing for consideration of child abuse and involvement with child protective services). -8 - J-S33031-14 v. M.L.G., 2013 PA Super 40 , 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 68 A.3d 909 (2013).

2016Further, “in the recent past, grandparents have assumed increased roles in their grandchildren’s lives and our cumulative experience demonstrates the many potential benefits of strong inter-generational ties.” Hiller, supra at 360 , 902 A.2d at 886 .

2015Further, “in the receht past, grandparents have assumed increased roles in their grandchildren’s lives and our cumulative experience demonstrates the many potential benefits- of strong inter-generational ties.” Hiller v. Fausey, 588 Pa. 342, 360 , 904 A.2d 875, 886 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1304 , 127-S.Ct. 1876, 167 L.Ed.2d 363 (2007).

2020Although a trial court must consider all of these factors, “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.” K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). -6- J-A07006-20 Herein, Father argues that the trial court erred in granting Mother primary physical custody of the Children.

2019However, “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.” Id. at 1160 (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa.Super. 2013)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258, 1261 (Pa. 1999).

2020See Taylor, supra at 1038; see also Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258 , 1261–62 (Pa. 1999) (“The statute makes clear that where, as here, the petition is untimely, it is the petitioner’s burden to plead ____________________________________________ PCRA petition in evaluating its timeliness because his appellate brief fails to advance any of the claims raised below.

2025There 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).

2024See Saintz, 902 A.2d at 512 (explaining that this Court’s “paramount concern and the polestar of our analysis” in custody cases is the best interests of the child) (citation omitted).

2025“Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall under an enumerated exception.” Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 68 (Pa. 2012); Pa.R.E. 802. - 15 - J-S27033-25 Appellee argues, and the PCRA court ruled, that Claitt’s recantation is admissible under the hearsay exception for a statement against interest, which reads as follows: (b) Hearsay Exceptions.

2023“Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall under an enumerated exception.” Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 68 (Pa. 2012); Pa.R.E. 802.

2024See Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011).

2024See Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011).

2022See Burton, supra at 527 .

2016See Burton, 936 A.2d at 525 ; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

2020“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.” Id. (quoting M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 112 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2019“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.” M.J.N. v. J.K., 169 A.3d 108, 112 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2015See id. at 67 (emphasizing that “forfeiture decisions should be based upon an examination -7- J-A06035-15, J-A06036-15 of the totality of the circumstances presented in the individual case, and no one point or factor should be talismanic in making that determination”).

2014Indeed, the Hann Court emphasized that the factors were only some potentially relevant considerations, and that “forfeiture decisions should be based upon an examination of the totality of the circumstances presented in the individual case, and no one point or factor should be talismanic in making that determination.” Hann, 81 A.3d at 67 ; see also id. at 68 (reiterating that “courts should look to these as well as other factors as justice dictates on a case-by-case basis, understanding that the parameters of each will be applied differently to each -7- J-S68035-14 individual forfeiture procee

2022The court does not need to explain its decision in detail; rather, “all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” Id. (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa.Super. 2013)).

2021The court does not need to explain its decision in detail; rather, “all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations.” Id. (quoting M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa.Super. 2013)).

2006After considering the parties’ arguments on this issue, we must conclude that the trial court properly adopted the more objective approach and compared the penalty imposed to the maximum penalty available, an approach endorsed in 5444 Spruce Street: “The Court enumerated factors by which a court may measure the gravity of the offense, each of which is limited to the conduct of the defendant: the penalty imposed as compared to the maximum penalty available; whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern of misbehavior; and the harm resulting from the crime charged.” 574 Pa. at 433 , 83

2006After considering the parties’ arguments on this issue, we must conclude that the trial court properly adopted the more objective approach and compared the penalty imposed to the maximum penalty available, an approach endorsed in 5444 Spruce Street: “The Court enumerated factors by which a court may measure the gravity of the offense, each of which is limited to the conduct of the defendant: the penalty imposed as compared to the maximum penalty available; whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern of misbehavior; and the harm resulting from the crime charged.” 574 Pa. at 433 , 83

2026Id. (citing Wells v. Harrisburg Area School District, 884 A.2d 946, 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)).

2025Although the court must consider all of the sixteen “best interest” factors and the three factors pertaining to grandparents, “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.” D.R.L., 216 A.3d at 280; see also Wilson v. Smyers, 284 A.3d 509 , 516–17 (Pa. Super. 2022).

2025This Court has emphasized that the trial court, as the finder of fact, determines “which factors are most salient and critical in each particular case.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32, 35-36 (Pa. Super. 2010)). - 16 - J-A17029-25 In expressing the reasons for its decision, “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., 63 A.3d at 336 .

2025Because Appellant did not preserve the issues of whether his sentence was excessive or that the trial court failed to adequately consider the enumerated factors set forth in the Sentencing Code, Appellant has waived this issue on appeal.3 See Corley, 31 A.3d at 296 ; see also Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077, 1086 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc) (holding that an appellant cannot pursue alternative theories for relief for the first time on appeal).