Michael L. Layton-Herron v. Kaylee M. Litke

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a custody order awarding the father sole legal custody over the child’s medical decision-making, including vaccination decisions, while otherwise providing for shared legal and physical custody. The court held that the mother waived her constitutional and statutory arguments by failing to raise them timely in the trial court. It also concluded that religious-liberty protections did not prevent the court from acting in the child’s best interests when the child’s health was implicated.

Holdings

1. Mother waived her Article I, Section 3 constitutional arguments because she did not expressly raise them in the trial court and first asserted them in her Rule 1925 concise statement. Even if preserved, the constitutional claim would fail because a parent's religious-liberty rights do not prevent the state from restricting parental authority when necessary to protect a child's physical health and welfare.
2. Mother waived her argument that 28 Pa. Code § 23.84(b) supplied a religious exemption from vaccination because she raised the issue for the first time in a post-trial motion for reconsideration.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in considering the factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a), awarding shared physical custody, and granting Father sole medical decision-making authority.
4. Mother waived any claim that the trial court should have ordered a psychological evaluation of Father because she did not request the evaluation within the fifteen-day period specified in the interim custody order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether awarding Father sole legal custody over the child's medical decisions violated Mother's rights under Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because of her asserted religious objections to vaccination.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred as a matter of law in awarding Father authority to make vaccination and other medical decisions.
3. Whether Mother's challenge under 28 Pa. Code § 23.84(b) was preserved.
4. Whether the trial court properly considered and weighed the custody factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) in awarding shared physical custody and sole medical decision-making to Father.
5. Whether Mother preserved a claim based on the recommendation that Father undergo a psychological evaluation.

Disposition

affirmed