C.M.K. v. K.E.M.
45 A.3d 417
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Mother seeks relocation with her child and modification of custody; trial court denied both relocation and custody modification.
- Mother previously shared legal custody with Father and had primary physical custody; current schedule is an every-other-weekend/weekday arrangement.
- Mother proposes moving to Albion, 68 miles from Grove City, to be closer to family, with a revised custody schedule.
- Move would affect Father’s ability to exercise custodial rights; trial court found relocation and best-interest claims unsupported.
- Relevant Act is the Child Custody Act enacted Jan. 24, 2011; petition filed June 2, 2011; notice and objections followed the Act’s framework.
- Court affirmed denial of relocation and modification after applying relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed move qualifies as relocation under §5322(a). | Mother contends move is not relocation since overall custody time increases. | Father argues move significantly impairs his custodial rights. | Relocation found; move significantly impairs Father's custodial rights. |
| Whether relocation is in Child's best interests under §5337(h). | Mother asserts benefits of proximity to family and potential employment justify relocation. | Father emphasizes child's stable Grove City life and established support network. | Best-interest claim rejected; relocation not in Child’s best interests. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered safety and abuse factors in relocation analysis. | Mother cites past abuse by Father affecting relocation decision. | Court found Father’s temper not directed at Child; abuse impact minimal. | Court weighed safety factors and found no risk to Child from denial of relocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 2005) (paramount consideration is the child’s best interests in custody decisions)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Act applies to relocation proceedings filed after effective date)
- Baldwin v. Baldwin, 710 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1998) (relocation cases require case-by-case analysis; no formula)