D.P.L. v. V.I.R.
D.P.L. v. V.I.R. No. 207 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Mother (V.I.R.) sought to relocate with her two daughters (born 2003 and 2005) from Bethlehem, PA to Smyrna, DE to live with her husband, an active-duty Air Force member stationed in Delaware.
- Father (D.P.L.) objected; he has court-ordered alternating weekend physical custody and a long-standing strained/alienated relationship with the children following periods of limited contact.
- Two court-appointed experts (a psychologist and a clinical social worker) found severe hostility/parental alienation toward Father and recommended frequent, consistent, extended contact to repair the relationship; both warned relocation could impede that plan.
- The children expressed a preference to move and deep animosity toward Father. Mother proposed reduced but periodic in-person custody (monthly during school year; extended summer time) with neutral exchange location.
- Trial court applied the statutory relocation factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)) and best-interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)), finding factors relating to the nature of the children’s relationship with Father, developmental impact, feasibility of preserving relationship, and parental conduct favored Father; factors favoring relocation (children’s preference, quality-of-life improvements) were insufficient to overcome harms to the parent–child relationship.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relocation petition.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Mother’s petition to relocate children from Bethlehem, PA to Smyrna, DE | Relocation would improve family life (husband’s home), mother would pursue education, children prefer moving; court should weigh statutory factors without undue deference to current father-daughter hostility | Relocation would materially impair Father’s ability to rebuild relationships; experts recommend frequent, regular contact that distance would frustrate; relocation would exacerbate alienation | Denial affirmed — court did not err; preserving and repairing parent–child relationship outweighed relocation benefits given the record and expert opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of appellate review for custody orders: abuse of discretion and deference to trial court findings)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court may determine which statutory factors are most salient in a particular relocation case)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court’s paramount concern is the child’s best interest; appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate review asks whether the record supports the trial court’s conclusions)