Full Opinion

J-A18001-26 2026 PA Super 201 JOELINE A. DURRETT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DEREK L. DURRETT : : Appellant : No. 118 WDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Dated December 23, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Civil Division at No(s): 2023 GN 2901 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J. OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: September 14, 2026 Derek L. Durrett (“Father”) appeals from the order granting Joeline A. Durrett (“Mother”) primary physical custody of Child but allowing Child to finish the school year in the Philippines while staying with Mother’s family. Because Father’s sole issue involves the location of Child during the 2025- 2026 school year, which has already concluded, we dismiss this appeal as moot. The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history: The parties are the parents of a minor Child, K.D., [born in March 2017]. They were married and are now divorced by virtue of a Decree dated February 2, 2024 after separating in September 2023. The controlling Custody Order dated February 5, 2024 gives the parties 50/50 custodial rights. In July … 2024, Father consented to the Child leaving with Mother to go to Iloilo City in the Philippines where Mother’s parents and cousin reside. The parties dispute for how long the Child was to remain in the Philippines. Mother claims that the agreement was that if the Child adapted well, the Child would remain there indefinitely; Father claims that the Child was to be there for a short period of time so that Mother could become settled in her affairs and that the Child J-A18001-26 was to return to Blair County. Father testified that every time that the Child was to come back to Blair County, Mother persuaded him to allow the Child to remain in the Philippines. After a few months in the Philippines Mother relocated to Las Vegas where she has resided ever since, leaving the Child with her parents in the Philippines. Mother left the Child with her parents so that she could go to Las Vegas for [a] better opportunity to save enough money to return to the Philippines in approximately three years. The Child has been in the Philippines since July … 2024 and remains there in the custody of Mother’s parents despite the terms of the controlling Custody Order. Father expressed fears for the Child’s safety in the Philippines due to press reports of terrorism. Father filed a Petition to Modify Custody Order on September 26, 2025 seeking to have the Child [either] returned to him in Blair County [or to Mother in Las Vegas]. After emergency petitions were filed by each party, [the trial court] scheduled a custody evidentiary hearing on December 19, 2025 so as to accommodate the Child’s schooling. Both parties testified at the hearing and we conducted an in camera interview of the Child. Little was gained from the interview because the Child, who was very sweet, answered “Yes” to most questions regardless of the question. Moreover, when asked how she liked living in the Philippines and how she liked living in Hollidaysburg, the Child said “Great!” to both questions. When asked about her friends in the Philippines and her friends in Hollidaysburg, she gave the same list of friends. The Child stated that her parents live together and we are unaware as to whether the parents have so advised her or if that is the Child’s assumption since, in fact, the parents do not live together and neither of the parents reside with the Child. Despite the limitations of the interview, the Child did indicate that Mother colors with her and the Child lit up when she said so in contrast to the rest of the interview. Mother testified that the Child attends a female-only Catholic school with seven students in the class and that the Child is doing very well but needs special education services and occupational therapy. The Child had previously been enrolled in Frankstown Elementary before leaving for the Philippines. -2- J-A18001-26 Both parents testified that there were behavioral issues with the Child at Frankstown which Mother says are no longer existing in the Philippines. Father testified that … he has already coordinated re-enrolling the Child in Frankstown with an IEP if he is successful in his Petition. Mother visits the Child every 6 months for 3 weeks at a time. Father has visited the Child twice. Father testified that his visits were “great” despite tensions with Mother’s family. Mother testified that the Child became upset when Father suggested that she would return to Blair County. Father testified that the Child was initially unhappy with the prospect of returning to Blair County but later simply said “Okay, Daddy[.”] Father [sought] primary physical custody of the Child, with Mother having visits or in the alternative for the Child to reside with Mother in Las Vegas. Mother [sought] to continue the status quo with the Child residing in the Philippines or in the alternative, to have primary physical custody of the Child in Las Vegas. Trial Court Opinion, 12/23/25, at 1-3. The trial court ordered the parties to share physical custody of the Child, with Mother having primary physical custody and Father having partial physical custody. Because Child was currently in school in the Philippines, the court ordered that Child may remain in the Philippines until school ended in April 2026. Thereafter, Mother was to have custody of Child in Las Vegas. Father filed a motion to reconsider seeking a change solely to the summer and Christmas holiday school breaks. The court denied the motion on December 31, 2025. On January 14, 2026, Father filed a timely notice of appeal and a Rule 1925(b) concise statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). In lieu of a new Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court referred this Court to its Opinion and Order filed December 23, 2025. -3- J-A18001-26 Father raises one issue for our review: Whether or not the trial court erred by allowing the [C]hild to go back to the Philippines to reside with a person who is not a party to this proceeding, when both parents would not be with the minor child? Appellant’s Brief, at 4. Our standard and scope of review are well settled: We review custody orders for an abuse of discretion. We will not find such an abuse merely because we would have reached a different conclusion. Rather, an abuse of discretion occurs only if the trial court overrode or misapplied the law in reaching its conclusion, or the record shows the trial court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Moreover, our scope of review is broad. Because this Court does not make independent factual determinations, however, we must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record. Importantly, we defer to the trial court on matters of credibility and weight of the evidence, as the trial court viewed and assessed witnesses firsthand. We are not, however, bound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences. 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. As this Court has held, it is not this Court’s function to determine whether the trial court reached the right decision; rather, we must consider whether, based on the evidence presented, given [sic] due deference to the trial court’s weight and credibility determinations, the trial court erred or abused its discretion. When a trial court orders a form of custody, the best interest of the child is paramount. 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. To that end, the Child Custody Act sets forth sixteen factors that a court must consider before making any custody determination. It is within the trial court’s purview as the finder of -4- J-A18001-26 fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in each particular case. Taylor v. Smith, 302 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Father argues the trial court erred in “granting a non-party … physical custody” of the Child until April 2026. Id. at 10. Because this date has come and gone, we first must determine if this matter is moot before we can address the merits of Father’s claim. “This Court has held that we may sua sponte raise the issue of mootness, as we generally cannot decide moot or abstract questions, nor can we enter a judgment or decree to which effect cannot be given.” C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has explained: As a general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as moot. An issue can become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in the facts of the case or due to an intervening change in the applicable law. In that case, an opinion of this Court is rendered advisory in nature. An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect. M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). There are three exceptions to the standard rule regarding mootness: this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the -5- J-A18001-26 controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court. E.B. v. D.B., 209 A.3d 451, 461 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). This case does not meet any of the three exceptions. The Child was permitted to stay with family members for the remainder of the school year so she could finish the school year instead of transferring mid-year. The order provided that Child “shall reside with Mother in Las Vegas beginning immediately after the end of the school year in the Philippines in April of 2026.” Order, 12/23, 25, at 1 (pagination added for ease of reference). April 2026 has come and gone. Because any ruling this Court issues would not have any legal force or effect, we find the only claim Father has raised moot. Although we find that the parties filed articulate and cogent briefs, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. We note the trial court thoughtfully detailed each required factor under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). If this matter were not moot, we would affirm on the basis of the trial court’s comprehensive opinion as it clearly focused on the best interests of the child. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/23/25, attached hereto. Appeal dismissed. -6- J-A18001-26 DATE: 09/14/2026 -7- i. Circulated 08/25/2026 11:17 AM t i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION - CUSTODY JOELINE A. DURRETT, Plaintiff, No. 2023 GN 2901 v. DEREK L. DURRETT, Defendant. ************************************************************************ HON. DAVID B. CONSIGLIO JUDGE MEGHAN CLAAR, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PHILLIP ROBERTSON, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT *************************************************************^*************'*** m OPINION & ORDER 19 December 2025 FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY -m 4 The parties are the parents of a minor Child, K.D., DOB SjUteOl^The^-Were married and are now divorced by virtue of a Decree dated February 2, 2024 after separating in September 2023. The controlling Custody Order dated January 5, 2024 gives the parties 50/50 custodial rights. In July of 2024, Father consented to the Child leaving with Mother to go to Iloilo City in the Philippines where Mother’s' parents and cousin reside. The parties dispute for how long the Child was to remain in the Philippines. Mother claims that the agreement was that if the Child adapted well, the Child would remain there indefinitely; Father claims that the Child was to be there for a short period of time so that Mother could become settled in her affairs and that the Child was to return to Blair County. Father testified that every time 1 that the Child was to come back to Blair County, Mother persuaded him to allow the Child to remain in the Philippines. After a few months in the Philippines Mother relocated to Las Vegas where she has resided ever since, leaving the Child with her parents in the Philippines. Mother left the Child with her parents so that she could go to Las Vegas for better opportunity to save enough money to return to the Philippines in approximately three years. The Child has been in the Philippines since July of 2024 and remains there in $ the custody of Mother’s parents despite the terms of the controlling Custody Order. Father expressed fears for the Child’s safety in the Philippines due to press reports of terrorism. Father filed a Petition to Modify Custody Order on September 26, 2025 seeking to have the Child returned to him in Blair County. After emergency petitions were filed by each party, we scheduled a custody evidentiary hearing on December 19, 2025 I so as to accommodate the Child’s schooling. Both parties testified at the hearing and we conducted an in camera interview of the Child. Little was gained from the interview because the Child, who was very sweet, answered “Yes” to most questions regardless of the question. Moreover, when 1 asked how she liked living in the Philippines and how she liked living in Hollidaysburg, the Child said “Great!” to both questions. When asked about her friends in the Philippines and her friends in Hollidaysburg, she gave the same list of I friends. The Child stated that her parents live together and we are unaware as to i whether the parents have so advised her or if that is the Child’s assumption since, in 2 / fact, the parents do not live together and neither of the parents reside with the Child. * Despite the limitations of the interview, the Child did indicate that Mother colors i with her and the Child lit up when she said so in contrast the rest of the interview. Mother testified that the Child attends a female-only Catholic school with seven students in the class and that the Child is doing very well but needs special education services and occupational therapy. The Child had previously been enrolled l in Frankstown Elementary before leaving for the Philippines. I ! Both parents testified that there were behavioral issues with the !Child at Frankstown which Mother says are no longer existing in the Philippines. Father testified that the he has already coordinated re-enrolling the Child in Frankstown with an IEP if he is successful in his Petition. j Mother visits the Child every 6 months for 3 weeks at a time. Father has visited the Child twice. Father testified that his visits were “great” despite tensions with Mother’s family. Mother testified that the Child became upset when Father suggested that she would return to Blair County. Father testified that the Child was initially unhappy with the prospect of returning to Blair County but later simply said “Okay, Daddy”, Father seeks primary residential custody of the Child, with Mother having visits or in the alternative for the Child to reside with Mother in Las Vegas. Mother * seeks to continue the status quo with the Child residing in the Philippines or in the alternative, to have primary physical custody of the Child in Las Vegas. 3 1 i We hold that the Child shall primarily reside with Mother in Las Vegas and apply the evidence to the statutory factors in coming to that determination. 1 IL APPLICABLE LAW & DISCUSSION 1 Our paramount concerns are the safety of the children and their best interests J and permanent welfare. Commonwealth ex rel Pierce v. Pierce, 493 Pa. 292, 426 A. t 2d 555 (1981). Determination of the best interest of the child is based on consideration of all factors which legitimately have an effect upon a child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. E.A.L. and J.L.L. v. L.J.W., 662 A.2d 1109 (Pa Super. 1995). Act 11 of 2025 requires us to apply the facts to the following factors, giving k substantial weighted consideration to factors (1), (2), (2.1) and (2.2), below pertaining to the safety of the Child. j (1) Which party is more likely to ensure the safety of the child. Despite the Father’s expressed fears of terrorism in the Philippines, there is no evidence that any such activity has affected the Child in any way. Unfortunately, the specter of terrorism is not isolated to the Philippines and as recent events have shown, those threats exist virtually everywhere and could happen anywhere at any time. We do not suggest that the threat is the same in Blair County as it may be in the Philippines, and recognize that the U.S. Department of State issued a Level 2 Travel Advisory in May of 2025 urging the exercise of increased caution in the Philippines due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and kidnapping and advising not to travel to the Sulu Archipelago i and Marawi City, which are 2 hours from Iloilo. We find only that such fears have thankfully not come to fruition in this Child’s life. I 4 (2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household, which may include past or current protection from abuse or sexual violence protection orders where there has; been a finding of abuse. There is no evidence of abuse in this case. However, we do find that Father’s leaving the Child at home alone on one occasion in the past when he went to New Jersey is troubling. ' (2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services). * There is no evidence of child protective services involved in this family, t (2.2) Violent or assaultive behavior committed by a party. There is no evidence of violent or assaultive behavior in this case. Again, however, t we find Father’s text messages threatening suicide to be very troubling, even though Mother does not believe that Father would commit suicide. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). To his credit, Father continues to counsel and take his medications, but we cannot ignore the J substance of those messages. For example, Father stated that he is “so angry because God hasn’t killed me yet.” He has sent a photograph of a bag of pills indicating he “procured enough pills to stop my heart from beating.” Clearly, there are issues to be resolved for Father but there was no evidence that he has ever threatened the Child. (2.3) The level of cooperation and conflict between the parties, including: (i) which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other party or parties if contact is consistent with the safety needs of the child; and (ii) the attempts by a party to turn the child against the other party, except in cases of abuse where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the safety of the child. A party's good faith and reasonable effort to protect the safety of a child or self shall not be considered evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with the other party. A. party's reasonable concerns for the safety 5 • I Ii i of the child and the party's reasonable efforts to protect the child shall not be considered attempts to turn the child against the other party. A child's deficient or negative relationship with a party shall not be presumed to be caused by the other party. The parties do not communicate very much and it appears that when they do, they do so poorly as evidenced by the text messages exchanged as set forth in Plaintiffs Exhibit, 1. Nevertheless, each party testified that they do not wish to keep the Child from the other. Rather, Mother does not believe that the Child would be safe with Father due to his suicidal ideations and Father does not believe the Child is safe in the Philippines. t (3) A willingness and ability of a party to prioritize the needs of the child by providing appropriate care, stability and continuity for the child, considering the parental duties performed by the party on behalf of the child in the past and whether the party is willing and able to perform the duties in the future, and attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child. । J We find that both parties have challenges in providing the stability and care that the Child needs. Father’s mental health issues are a concern. Mother impliedly admits that prioritizing the Child is a problem for her by leaving the Child with her parents. We fin d that the best place for the Child at this point is with her Mother. While we understand Mother’s striving to save money, she is going to have to do so prioritizing the t Child. Again, we find Father’s messages to Mother particularly disturbing. He messaged Mother that he hoped she would “clap after I strip [K.D.] away from her family in the Philippines.” (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). Most disturbing, Father wrote “I want to bring [K.D.] back here just so it hurts you. She is happier there but I don’t want her to believe breaking apart a family brings more light in everyone’s life. [K.D. is going to hurt just I like us.” (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). “I’ll get a wife and take [K.D.].” (Def. Ex 2). Obviously, 6 this undermines Father’s credibility and demonstrates that at least part of his motivation has nothing to do with the best interests of the Child. (4) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life and community life, except if changes are necessary to protect the safety of the child or a party. J•f This Child needs stability. That stability is best able to be provided by her Mother. r We have little information about Mother’s parents or Mother’s cousin. Regardless of location, we believe that the Child’s stability will be best served while residing with Mother with visits by Father. The services to be provided to the Child can beiprovided in Las Vegas as well as they can be provided in the Philippines. ’ (5) The child's sibling and other familial relationships. | The Chil d has relationships with Mother’s parents and cousin. Mother also I , I testified that her father’s extended family resides in the Philippines but againiprovided little information as to their relationship with the Child. Father’s parents reside in Las r Vegas as well. Whil e they have not seen the Child, this may provide an opportunity for them to re-establish contact with the Child. (6) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's developmental stage, maturity and judgment. As described above, the Child did not express a preference and we doubt the Child’s ability to make a decision on that issue. We credit Father’s account of the Child i reacting differently to the same question — i.e., as to where she wants to reside — I differently at different times. , (7) The proximity of the residences of the parties. | * Obviously, this is an important factor in this case with the Father living in Hollidaysburg and Mother in Las Vegas. The costs of travel will have to be borne by the parents for the benefit of the Child. 7 I 1 r k I (8) Each party's employment schedule and availability to care’ for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements, i Both parties have full-time jobs but both can make appropriate child-care t arrangements. Mother is able to alter her schedule to work night shifts on weekends and lives with a friend’s mother who is able to care for the Child when Mother is working. Father has a full-time job and has the availability of the same baby-sitter । that the f parents used when they lived together. J (9) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's household. ! This factor is not applicable to the credit of the parties. । (10) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's household. ' Father testified that he is in counseling and taking medication for PTSD, depression and ADD.. He takes Lexapro and Adderall. While we find that Father poses 1 no threat of harm to the Child so long as he continues his counseling and medication, this factor favors Mother. f (11) Any other relevant factor. We have addressed the relevant factors above. B. Safety Conditions 1 Section 5323 requires the Court to also consider the factors under sections 5329 (relating to consideration of criminal conviction), 5329.1 (relating to consideration of child abuse and ’involvement with protective services) and 5330 (relating to consideration of criminal charge). 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(e). If the court finds a history of abuse of the child or a household member by a party or a present risk of harm to the child or an abused party and awards any form of custody to a party who 8 committed the abuse or who has a household member who committed the abuse, the court shall include in the custody order: (i) The safety conditions, restrictions or safeguards as reasonably necessary to protect the child or the abused party. (ii) The reason for imposing the safety conditions, restrictions or safeguards, including an explanation why the safety conditions, restrictions or safeguards are in the best interest of the child or the abused party. (iii) The reasons why unsupervised physical custody is in the best interest of the child if the court finds that past abuse was committed by aparty. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(e). 1. § 5329 (relating to consideration of criminal conviction) i Neither of the parties have any criminal convictions. , 2. § 5329.1 (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with protective services) Jk Child protective services has never been involved with this family. 3. § 5330 (relating to consideration of criminal charge) There is no evidence of other criminal charges against either party, j I We issue the following