102 A.3d 467
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- D.K. and S.P.K. are the parents of J.K., S.K., and C.K.; the Family Court awarded primary physical custody to Mother.
- Mother has history of alcoholism but has been sober since November 16, 2011 and resides with her parents in North Carolina.
- Father relocated to Pittsburgh area; the family previously lived in Leesburg, Virginia; Mother asserted a relocation to North Carolina would be in the children's best interests.
- Mother petitioned for custody in 2012; consent order in March 2012 granted Mother supervised custody periodically; Father challenged custody in 2013.
- Trial court held in camera interviews and ultimately awarded Mother primary custody on January 16, 2014; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation provisions apply per se | Father: 5337(c) notice required; Mother failed timely notice. | Mother: neither parent relocating, so 5337 not triggered. | Not per se triggered; notice not required. |
| Whether the court erred by considering relocation factors when no relocation occurred | Father: 5337(h) factors still applicable to best interests. | Mother: 5328(a) factors govern; 5337(h) considered where relevant. | 5337(h) factors considered within 5328(a) best interests analysis. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed Mother’s alcoholism in the best interests analysis | Father: alcoholism should weigh more heavily against Mother. | Mother: sobriety and stable environment mitigated risk; trial court properly weighed evidence. | Court properly weighed alcoholism; supported award to Mother. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in crediting evidence and deference to trial court | Father: trial court misweighed evidence; failed to reweigh credibility. | Mother: standard deferential review; trial court credited firsthand observations. | No abuse of discretion; findings supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasizes best interests and deference to trial court findings)
- Clapper v. Harvey, 716 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1998) ( Gruber factors applied to relocation cases; relocation not required if no move)
- Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990) (three-factor test for relocation decisions)
- Reefer v. Reefer, 791 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Gruber factors applied where child relocates even if no parent relocates)
- B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2012) (verbal notice in relocation context; court analyzed notice adequacy)