primary custody in which it failed to address each section 5328(a) factor. Instead, it “based its decision almost exclusively on the fact that Child is breastfeeding and the parties’ difficulty commu nicating with each other” and made no mention of the preponderance of the section 5328(a) factors. J.R.M. 33 A.3d at 652. By failing to address each section 5328(a) factor in its opinion, we concluded that “the trial court failed to properly consider the statutorily mandated factors in arriving at its custody determination!)]” Id. We held that the trial court must expressly consider all of the section 5328(a) factors when entering a custody order in order to comply with the Custody Act’s requirements, and that failure to do so amounts to an error of law. Id.; see also M.P., 54 A.3d at 956 (<HOLDING>). While the Custody Act requires a trial court
holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal recognizing that failure by state to provide the required certification deprives appeals court of jurisdiction over appeal holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding district court correctly reversed a departure sentence where the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure