A Pennsylvania father threatened not to take his daughters to school if their mother came for a first-day photo, and barred her from tennis matches; appeals judges upheld her control of activities on November 12
A custody dispute can become particularly difficult when parents struggle to cooperate over their children's everyday activities and important milestones. In Pennsylvania , a father who objected to the mother's involvement in the children's school events and extracurricular activities challenged a custody order giving her sole decision-making authority over those activities. The Pennsylvania Superior Court , in a November 12, 2026 memorandum decision available on Justia, upheld the arrangement, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's custody determination.
The case involved John M Surma and Julie S Surma, who share two daughters. Although both parents retained shared physical and legal custody, the trial court gave the mother sole legal custody over the children's extracurricular activities. The father appealed, arguing that the court had made errors in evaluating the evidence and determining the custody arrangements.
Dispute over school events and children's activities
The custody proceedings had been ongoing since 2019, following the father's divorce and custody filings. Both parents had previously been granted shared legal and physical custody. However, disagreements over parenting arrangements , communication and the children's activities continued, eventually leading the father to seek another modification in May 2024. During the custody proceedings, the mother testified that she regularly offered the daughters different extracurricular activities and allowed them to choose which ones they wanted to pursue. She also placed the schedules on a shared calendar and welcomed the father to attend.
However, she said the father did not extend the same opportunity to her. According to her testimony, he prevented her from attending school events, award ceremonies, piano recitals and birthday parties when these took place during his custody periods. She also said he had threatened to withhold the children's scheduled video calls with her if she attended certain events.
The dispute extended to sporting activities. The mother was not allowed to watch the girls' tennis matches at the father's country club. The trial court also noted that the father sometimes failed to take the children to activities arranged by their mother when they fell on his custody days. The lower court found that his behaviour reflected an unwillingness to encourage the children's continuing relationship with their mother. It considered this particularly important when assessing the level of cooperation and conflict between the parents.
Court examines parents' conduct and children's interests
The trial court also considered other incidents that highlighted the difficulties in the parents' relationship. These included disagreements over custody exchanges, repeated police involvement and disputes about the children's telephone and video calls.
One incident involved the younger daughter suffering a broken arm while in the father's care. After hospital visits, the father returned the child to his home and left her with a nanny while he went back to work, rather than allowing her to spend that time with her mother. The court also examined the father's use of software to track the duration of the children's video calls with each parent. He argued that the difference in call lengths was unfair, but the trial court found that he had sometimes ended or withheld the mother's calls.
Both parents had made negative comments about each other in front of the children, and the court acknowledged that the mother was not entirely without fault. Nevertheless, it found that the father's conduct contributed significantly to the conflict and could eventually affect the children's emotional well-being. The court concluded that the daughters were doing well in school and had good relationships with their friends, but their parents needed to reduce the tension surrounding their custody arrangements.
Appeals court upholds mother's authority over activities
The father challenged several aspects of the amended custody order, arguing that the trial court had exceeded the scope of his original modification petition and had incorrectly assessed the evidence. He also objected to the mother's sole legal authority over extracurricular activities, arguing that it could allow her to exclude him from an important part of the children's lives. The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected his arguments. It explained that once a custody modification is under consideration, the trial court can examine the relevant arrangements more broadly, provided the parties receive proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
On the extracurricular activities issue, the appeals judges found that the lower court had properly considered the children's best interests and the parents' inability to cooperate in this area. The evidence of the father's restrictions on the mother's attendance at school and sporting events supported the decision. The appeals court also upheld the other challenged arrangements, including the requirement that custody exchanges take place at school to reduce conflict between the parents. It agreed that continuing daily video calls with the non-custodial parent served the children's interests.
On November 12, 2026, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the amended final custody order, leaving the shared physical custody arrangement and the mother's sole legal authority over extracurricular activities in place. The decision is a non-precedential memorandum, meaning it does not establish binding precedent for other Pennsylvania cases.
The case involved John M Surma and Julie S Surma, who share two daughters. Although both parents retained shared physical and legal custody, the trial court gave the mother sole legal custody over the children's extracurricular activities. The father appealed, arguing that the court had made errors in evaluating the evidence and determining the custody arrangements.
Dispute over school events and children's activities
The custody proceedings had been ongoing since 2019, following the father's divorce and custody filings. Both parents had previously been granted shared legal and physical custody. However, disagreements over parenting arrangements , communication and the children's activities continued, eventually leading the father to seek another modification in May 2024. During the custody proceedings, the mother testified that she regularly offered the daughters different extracurricular activities and allowed them to choose which ones they wanted to pursue. She also placed the schedules on a shared calendar and welcomed the father to attend.
However, she said the father did not extend the same opportunity to her. According to her testimony, he prevented her from attending school events, award ceremonies, piano recitals and birthday parties when these took place during his custody periods. She also said he had threatened to withhold the children's scheduled video calls with her if she attended certain events.
The dispute extended to sporting activities. The mother was not allowed to watch the girls' tennis matches at the father's country club. The trial court also noted that the father sometimes failed to take the children to activities arranged by their mother when they fell on his custody days. The lower court found that his behaviour reflected an unwillingness to encourage the children's continuing relationship with their mother. It considered this particularly important when assessing the level of cooperation and conflict between the parents.
Court examines parents' conduct and children's interests
The trial court also considered other incidents that highlighted the difficulties in the parents' relationship. These included disagreements over custody exchanges, repeated police involvement and disputes about the children's telephone and video calls.
One incident involved the younger daughter suffering a broken arm while in the father's care. After hospital visits, the father returned the child to his home and left her with a nanny while he went back to work, rather than allowing her to spend that time with her mother. The court also examined the father's use of software to track the duration of the children's video calls with each parent. He argued that the difference in call lengths was unfair, but the trial court found that he had sometimes ended or withheld the mother's calls.
Both parents had made negative comments about each other in front of the children, and the court acknowledged that the mother was not entirely without fault. Nevertheless, it found that the father's conduct contributed significantly to the conflict and could eventually affect the children's emotional well-being. The court concluded that the daughters were doing well in school and had good relationships with their friends, but their parents needed to reduce the tension surrounding their custody arrangements.
Appeals court upholds mother's authority over activities
The father challenged several aspects of the amended custody order, arguing that the trial court had exceeded the scope of his original modification petition and had incorrectly assessed the evidence. He also objected to the mother's sole legal authority over extracurricular activities, arguing that it could allow her to exclude him from an important part of the children's lives. The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected his arguments. It explained that once a custody modification is under consideration, the trial court can examine the relevant arrangements more broadly, provided the parties receive proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
On the extracurricular activities issue, the appeals judges found that the lower court had properly considered the children's best interests and the parents' inability to cooperate in this area. The evidence of the father's restrictions on the mother's attendance at school and sporting events supported the decision. The appeals court also upheld the other challenged arrangements, including the requirement that custody exchanges take place at school to reduce conflict between the parents. It agreed that continuing daily video calls with the non-custodial parent served the children's interests.
On November 12, 2026, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the amended final custody order, leaving the shared physical custody arrangement and the mother's sole legal authority over extracurricular activities in place. The decision is a non-precedential memorandum, meaning it does not establish binding precedent for other Pennsylvania cases.
Next Story