D.K. v. S.P.K.
102 A.3d 467
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father appeals a custody order awarding Mother primary physical custody of three children after a relocation discussion.
- Case involves non-relocating parents; children would move significantly, but neither parent relocates prior to trial.
- Mother struggled with alcoholism historically but has been sober since November 16, 2011; she resides with her parents in a stable home.
- Father has DUI history and alleged alcohol issues; he was unemployed at times and had custody-related tensions with Mother.
- Trial court conducted in-camera interviews and evaluated custody factors under 5328(a) and relocation factors under 5337(h).
- Court held that relocation notice provisions of 5337(c) do not apply when neither parent relocates, but 5337(h) factors still inform best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation notice under 5337 applies when neither parent relocates | Father contends Mother failed to comply with 5337(c) and 5337(j). | Mother argues 5337 does not apply where no relocation by either parent occurs. | 5337 not per se triggered; notice not required. |
| Whether trial court erred in applying 5328(a) and 5337(h) factors to a non-relocation move | Father claims improper weighting and application of factors, given distance concerns. | Mother asserts factors relevant to best interests remain applicable, including distance and stability. | Court correctly weighed 5328(a) and 5337(h) factors; best interests favored Mother. |
| Whether weight given to Mother's alcoholism was appropriate | Father argues alcoholism should have been given greater weight against Mother's custody. | Mother asserts sobriety and stability mitigate prior issues. | Findings supported by substantial evidence; court did not err in weighting. |
| Whether court abused discretion in assessing best interests given distance and stability | Father contends distance from Pennsylvania to North Carolina undermines stability. | Mother argues stability in her home and bond with children supports custody decision. | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably concluded continued stability with Mother is in children's best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Harvey, 716 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1998) (apply Gruber factors in relocation/relocation-like cases when child relocation affects best interests)
- Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990) (three-factor Gruber test for significant move of custodial parent)
- Reefer v. Reefer, 791 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Gruber factors applied where child stands to move; relocation context relevance)
- B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2012) (relocation notice discussion; court treats notices and relocation as related but not dispositive)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review and balancing custody factors in best interests analysis)