D.K.D. v. A.L.C.
141 A.3d 566
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in March 2015; child L.D. (born 2008) has a Pervasive Developmental Disorder with intensive in‑home therapy needs and value for routine/stability.
- Mother had primary physical custody; Father (FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force) had limited weekday/evening and alternating Saturday custody; Mother often resisted Father’s exercising custodial time outside the marital home.
- Mother filed notice to relocate to Florida; Father filed to modify custody. Trial court initially denied relocation (March 2015) and increased Father’s custody; Mother moved, obtained Florida employment, purchased a Florida home, and sought reconsideration.
- Trial court reopened the record, heard additional evidence (Mother’s job, home purchase, Maternal Grandmother’s support) and reversed, granting Mother’s amended petition to relocate with L.D. to Treasure Island, FL and denying Father’s request for primary custody (August 2015).
- Father appealed, arguing (inter alia) gender bias, failure to properly apply best‑interest and relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5328, 5337, and that the court improperly credited Mother’s motives, finances, job search, and pattern of thwarting Father’s relationship with the child.
- The Superior Court reversed the relocation and remanded, concluding the trial court’s change of course on key § 5337(h) factors (child’s developmental needs; feasibility of preserving the relationship; parent conduct; quality of life) was unsupported and unreasonable in light of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied § 5328 best‑interest factors / gender neutrality | Court applied factors in gender‑biased way favoring Mother; decision treats maternal primary care as dispositive | Court applied factors neutrally; considered Mother as primary caretaker and Father’s limitations and interference | Court: No gender bias; findings supported by record; claim fails |
| Whether Mother met burden under § 5337(i) that relocation is in child’s best interest (ten § 5337(h) factors) | Mother failed to prove relocation served child’s best interest; trial court improperly reversed earlier denial based on insufficient new evidence | Mother’s new evidence (job, house purchase, Maternal Grandmother support) showed enhanced quality of life for both and feasibility of arrangements | Court: Trial court abused discretion reversing earlier conclusions; record does not support that relocation is in child’s best interest; relocation order reversed |
| Whether trial court appropriately assessed feasibility of preserving Father–child relationship after relocation (§ 5337(h)(3)) | Relocation logistics, Father’s job constraints, distance and travel costs make preserving relationship infeasible; court ignored these limits | Mother proposed holiday/summer schedule and visits in Florida to preserve relationship | Court: Trial court’s reasoning inconsistent (found infeasibility then imposed same deficient schedule); record does not support preserving relationship; error |
| Whether trial court adequately considered Mother’s pattern of conduct to thwart Father’s relationship (§ 5337(h)(5)) | Mother historically limited Father’s custodial time and refused overnight stays; court downplayed this despite evidence | Mother said she would cooperate and Maternal Grandmother would help preserve routine | Court: Trial court erred in discounting Mother’s interference; this materially undermines relocation decision |
Key Cases Cited
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of appellate review for custody orders; defer to trial court factual findings)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court may reject legal deductions unsupported by competent evidence)
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best‑interests standard considers all factors affecting child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well‑being)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing application of best‑interests standard in custody determinations)