Matthew Gregro v. Maritza C. Gonzalez

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews Matthew Gregro’s appeal from a Berks County custody order awarding Maritza C. Gonzalez sole legal and primary physical custody and Gregro supervised physical custody of their child. The appeal also challenges provisions restricting the parties and their attorneys from publicly discussing the case, including on social media. The court states that it affirms in part and reverses in part.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the statutory custody factors and awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody.
2. The trial court acted within its discretion in requiring Father’s physical custody to be professionally supervised.
3. The trial court was authorized to award Mother sole legal custody and limit Father’s legal-custody rights.
4. Father’s challenge to the restriction on telephone and electronic communications failed because the custody order did not absolutely prohibit contact; it permitted communication when K.G. requested it.
5. Father was not entitled to appellate relief on his challenges to the weight given to testimony, the consideration of his simple-assault conviction, the limitation of cross-examination, or the trial court’s observation concerning courtroom security.
6. The supplemental gag order was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the record did not establish that Father’s speech had harmed or would imminently harm K.G.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in weighing the statutory child-custody best-interest factors and awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring Father’s physical custody to be professionally supervised and limiting his legal-custody rights.
3. Whether the trial court improperly restricted Father’s telephone or electronic communications with K.G.
4. Whether Father waived his challenge to the trial court’s consideration of his federal firearm conviction.
5. Whether the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination was prejudicial error.
6. Whether the trial court improperly relied on its observation that an additional deputy sheriff was required in the courtroom.
7. Whether the supplemental gag order violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Disposition

reversed