A.V. v. S.T.
87 A.3d 818
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father and Mother are unmarried parents of three minor children and disputed custody and relocation in Luzerne County, PA.
- In July 2013 the trial court awarded them shared legal custody and shared physical custody on an alternating weekly basis, with exchanges each Sunday.
- Mother moved to Brick, New Jersey and took the Children during her custody weeks, prompting a relocation petition.
- In September 2013 the court granted Mother's relocation petition and issued a relocation order that reduced Father’s custody to partial physical custody on alternating weekends; no opinion accompanied the order at filing.
- Father appealed and the trial court subsequently filed a memorandum noting it had inadvertently failed to provide an opinion; no further independent errors complained of were filed.
- This appeal argues the trial court failed to apply the custody (5328) factors and relocation (5337) factors, and that the court adopted Mother’s brief rather than articulating independent analysis; the Superior Court vacates the order and remands for proper analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to apply 5328(a) custody factors | Father argues court erred by not applying 5328(a) before relocation. | Father contends court should have analyzed custody terms as part of modification. | Remand to apply 5328(a) and articulate independent analysis. |
| Failure to provide independent opinion on relocation | Father argues court adopted Mother's brief, lacking independent reasoning. | Mother contends an opinion was not properly required or recorded. | Remand to produce an independent, reasoned opinion addressing all relevant factors. |
| Best interests analysis for relocation and custody change | Father asserts relocation and altered custody must be supported by 5337(h) factors with conflict-free reasoning. | Mother asserts relocation fits best interests under but record lacks independent support if not properly analyzed. | Remand to conduct full best interests analysis under 5328(a) and 5337(h). |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (defers to trial court credibility and requires supported findings)
- Commonwealth v. Dejesus, 868 A.2d 379 (Pa. 2005) (independent judicial analysis required; trial court cannot wholesale adopt brief)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 876 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2002) (independent judicial analysis; articulate reasoning for dispositive orders)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explains required consideration of 5328 factors in custody decisions)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all 5328 factors must be considered in modification of custody)
- C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (5313(d) requires delineation of reasons and factor-based analysis)