A.M.S. v. M.R.C.
70 A.3d 830
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Mother sought permission to relocate with the parties’ child from Berks County, PA to Palmyra, NY; Father opposed and appealed after the trial court granted relocation and awarded primary custody to Mother with limited partial custody to Father.
- Parties lived together briefly; child born Feb 2010; parents separated May 2011. Mother proposed to live with her sister’s family in New York; Mother’s close family ties (and recent deaths in her family) were part of the factual background.
- Trial court held a hearing (7/17/12), announced a grant of relocation, and later entered a written order (8/6/12) with a custody schedule. Trial court did not state its full reasoning at or near the bench decision.
- Father appealed and raised, inter alia, that the trial court failed to articulate reasons contemporaneously and failed to consider all statutory custody (§5328) and relocation (§5337) factors. Mother did not participate in the appeal.
- The Superior Court considered whether (a) §5323(d) requires a contemporaneous articulation of reasons, and (b) whether the trial court actually considered all required §5328(a) custody and §5337(h) relocation factors.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. When must the trial court "delineate the reasons" for a custody/relocation ruling under 23 Pa.C.S. §5323(d)? | Trial court must state reasons at or near the time of the ruling (not defer until a Rule 1925 opinion). | (Mother did not participate on appeal.) | Court holds §5323(d) requires reasons at or near the time of the decision; rule applied prospectively (vacatur not automatic here for timing alone). |
| 2. Did the trial court consider all §5337(h) relocation factors? | Trial court failed to consider all ten relocation factors contemporaneously and in its ruling. | (No brief submitted.) | Court found the trial court’s 1925 opinion later discussed relocation factors but trial court did not fully consider household members’ substance-abuse/mental-health matters relevant to relocation; error requiring remand. |
| 3. Did the trial court consider all §5328(a) custody (best-interest) factors? | Trial court failed to consider all 16 custody factors when issuing its order. | (No brief submitted.) | Court concluded the trial court did not account for factors 14 and 15 (history of drug/alcohol abuse and mental/physical conditions of household members) — vacated and remanded for further findings. |
| 4. Remedy: appropriate relief for statutory and consideration failures? | Vacate custody/relocation order and remand for a hearing where missing factors are developed and court states reasons at or near its ruling. | (No response.) | Court vacated the order and remanded; trial court must permit evidence on the omitted factors and must articulate its reasons at or near the time of its new ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.B. v. J.B. and M.B. and T.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa.Super. 2013) (§5323(d) requires trial courts to delineate reasons at or near time of custody decision to avoid nullifying the statute and to permit meaningful appellate review)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa.Super. 2012) (trial court erred by failing to provide reasons until after an appeal was filed)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa.Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all §5328(a) factors; failure is legal error requiring vacatur)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa.Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all §5337(h) relocation factors and weight those affecting child safety)
- In re Adoption of J.A.S., 939 A.2d 403 (Pa.Super. 2007) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo; recited rules of statutory construction)