A.D.W. v. L.A.K., 507 WDA 2016

Background

Mother (A.D.W.) sought to relocate the parties' child (born July 2013) from Pennsylvania to the San Francisco Bay Area after previously relocating to Hawaii in violation of court orders; Father (L.A.K.) opposed relocation and sought enforcement and custody adjustments.
Procedural history: Mother’s earlier relocation to Hawaii was denied; Superior Court affirmed. After enforcement proceedings, Mother returned to Pennsylvania and filed new petitions (relocation to California and custody modification). Trial court held three-day evidentiary hearing and granted Mother’s relocation and primary physical custody while preserving shared legal custody and significant visitation for Father.
The court made extensive factual findings evaluating witness testimony, Skype recordings between Father and Mother, psychological evaluations, and instances of contentious custody exchanges.
The court found both parents bonded to the child, neither diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and that the child was well adjusted; it concluded relocation would improve Mother’s and the child’s quality of life and that long-distance custody was feasible with specific travel and Skype provisions.
The court imposed detailed travel/visit scheduling (monthly multi-day blocks, summer and holiday arrangements), ordered counseling for Father (ten sessions then joint communication counseling), reduced Father’s support by $150 to offset travel costs until the child reaches five, and warned of enforcement measures for noncompliance.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly applied §5328 custody factors	Applied factors and concluded best interest favored Mother (primary custody) and relocation supported by §5337(h) factors	Trial court misapplied §5328, undervalued Father’s extended-family role and risk to Father‑child bond	Trial court did not abuse discretion; findings supported and court’s reasoning adopted on appeal
Whether court considered Mother’s contemptuous conduct and false accusations	Court considered past conduct but focused on present circumstances and best interest	Argued trial court failed to give sufficient weight to Mother’s prior contempt and alleged false accusations	Appellate court concluded trial court did consider these histories and reasonably weighed them
Whether relocation to California met §5337(h) standard and preserved Father–child relationship	Relocation improves Mother’s employment prospects and child’s quality of life; proposed transport/Skype plan preserves relationship	Relocation would impair Father–child bond due to 3,000-mile distance; Mother could find work in PA	Trial court reasonably found relocation in child’s best interest under §5337(h) and adopted detailed preservation measures; affirmed on appeal
Whether trial court shifted burden or made inconsistent conclusions	Mother met burden via evidence of benefits and feasible custody preservation; trial court’s findings coherent	Court failed to require mother to satisfy relocation burden and made inconsistent credibility findings	Appellate court found no legal error or unreasonable inference; upheld trial court conclusions

Key Cases Cited

S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (best-interest standard in custody/relocation focuses on child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well‑being)
C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate scope in custody matters is abuse of discretion; defer to trial court on credibility and factual findings)
A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court conclusions may be rejected only for legal error or unreasonable in light of sustainable findings)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (custody discretion merits utmost respect because of trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion includes manifest unreasonableness, legal error, or partiality)