C.R.F. v. S.E.F, 45 A.3d 441

Mother sought modification of custody and relocation July 6, 2010; hearing on petition commenced April 7, 2011 after Act’s effective date.
Trial court granted relocation and awarded primary physical custody to Mother on June 16, 2011 based on Gruber factors.
This Court previously held the new Act applies to proceedings commenced after its effective date, even if petition filed earlier.
Here, Mother’s petition was filed before the Act’s effective date, but the evidentiary hearing occurred after; the issue is whether the Act applies to such a proceeding.
Court vacates the relocation/custody order and remands to apply the 5337(h) factors of the Act, rather than the Gruber framework.
The Act’s relocation provisions (5337(h)) govern the custody-relocation decision after the hearing commenced post‑effective date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relocation was properly decided under the Act’s 5337(h) factors.	Father argues the Act applies to the relocation decision and requires application of 5337(h).	Mother contends prior-law standards were applicable or not fully addressed by 5337(h) analysis.	Remand to apply 5337(h) factors; relocation order vacated.
Whether primary custody was correctly awarded under the Act.	Father contends evidence and factors do not support primary custody to Mother.	Mother argues best-interests supported by evidence.	Remand to apply 5337(h) factors; custody order vacated.

E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (interprets ‘proceeding’ for Act applicability and broad application after effective date)
C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2012) (follows E.D. and applies Act principles to relocation/modification inquiries)
Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa. Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Gruber factors incorporated into 5337(h) factors)