Background
Francis Snyder and Christina Hryhorchuk litigated custody of their child through a multi-day Montgomery County hearing. During the proceedings, the court ordered forensic psychological evaluations of both parents and a substance-abuse evaluation of the father. A heavily redacted portion of the mother’s psychological report was admitted for a limited purpose, but neither party introduced the complete psychological reports, the father’s substance-abuse report, or the mother’s medical records. The evaluators did not testify.
The trial court nevertheless relied extensively on those materials when awarding shared legal and physical custody. Its custody-factor analysis adopted the psychologist’s view of the parents’ relationship, discussed details outside the redacted exhibit, referenced medical and substance-abuse records, and relied on an agency conclusion that a ChildLine report was unfounded. It also attributed a view about abuse allegations to a guardian ad litem who had not testified or entered an appearance at the hearings.
The mother appealed, arguing that she had no notice that the court would consider those materials and no opportunity to authenticate them, challenge their contents, or cross-examine their authors. The father responded in part that she had not objected before the custody order was entered.
The Court’s Holding
In a published opinion, Judge McLaughlin wrote that the trial court violated due process by deciding custody on evidence outside the admitted record. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.8 distinguishes between ordering an evaluation and admitting the resulting report. A report is not evidence unless admitted, and when information from the evaluator is provided to the court, the evaluator must be available for cross-examination.
The mother did not waive the issue. The father never offered most of the materials, no witness testified about them, and the court did not announce during the hearing that it intended to rely on them. She therefore lacked a meaningful opportunity to object. Pennsylvania custody procedure also bars the ordinary post-trial motion that might otherwise allow a party to challenge newly revealed reasoning before appeal.
Because the unadmitted material played a substantial role in the custody-factor analysis, the error was not harmless. The Superior Court vacated the shared-custody order and directed a new custody hearing within 60 days. It also noted that an appellate court could not review whether the disputed information supported the trial court’s findings because documents outside the certified record are treated as nonexistent on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A court order directing psychological or substance-abuse evaluation does not itself make the resulting report evidence.
- Rule 1915.8 requires admission of an evaluator’s report and an opportunity for cross-examination when evaluator information is supplied to the custody court.
- A party does not waive an objection when the court gives no notice that it will rely on material never offered during the hearing.
- Reliance on unadmitted evidence central to the custody factors requires a new hearing, not merely a revised explanation.
Why It Matters
Snyder is a direct practice instruction for Pennsylvania custody litigators and judges. Court-ordered reports may be in chambers or available to counsel, but access is not admission. A party seeking to use an evaluation must satisfy evidentiary requirements, provide the report on time, and make the evaluator available for cross-examination. The same discipline applies to medical records, agency communications, and guardian-ad-litem statements.
The decision also connects record rules to constitutional fairness. Custody courts have broad responsibility to protect a child’s interests, but parties still must know what evidence will drive the decision and have a chance to answer it. Creating a clean admitted record protects the litigants and makes meaningful appellate review possible.