J.C. v. K.W.
J.C. v. K.W. No. 1347 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 27, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother K.W. and Father J.C.) share two children: I.C. (b. 2010) and J.C. (b. 2012). Custody disputes and relocation requests have been ongoing since 2013.
- Mother relocated to Baltimore in 2014 with court approval; custody orders thereafter provided alternating two-week schedules.
- Mother later sought modification; trial court (after hearings in 2016) awarded Father primary physical custody during the school year, with limited weekend and summer time to Mother.
- Trial court weighed 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 best-interest factors and relevant § 5337(h) relocation considerations, finding some factors favored Mother, some favored Father, and many neutral.
- Court emphasized concerns about Mother’s economic stability and the children’s need for stability/continuity; it tailored the custody order with reporting, exchange, holiday and summer provisions to preserve Mother’s relationship.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court ignored favorable evidence and misapplied factors; Superior Court affirmed, deferring to trial court credibility findings and discretionary weighing of factors.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding evidence favors Father for primary custody | Court ignored record evidence that favored Mother on many § 5328 factors | Trial court properly credited evidence showing Father offers greater stability and support network | Affirmed — appellate court defers to trial court credibility and weight determinations; no abuse of discretion |
| Stability and continuity (§ 5328(a)(4)) — can Mother provide stable home/financial support? | Mother points to leased home and activities for children as proof of stability | Father showed more reliable household stability (steady employment, wife’s income, home in good school district) | Affirmed — court reasonably found Father better able to provide stability given Mother’s uncertain self-employment and limited documentary proof of income |
| Availability of extended family/support (§ 5328(a)(5)) | Mother emphasized maternal visits and close friends who help | Father emphasized a broader, proximate paternal family (wife, parents, uncle) providing regular childcare and support | Affirmed — court found this factor slightly favored Father |
| Which parent will permit frequent continuing contact (§ 5328(a)(1)) and preservation of parent–child relationship post-relocation (§ 5337(h)) | Mother argued Father would restrict her access; seeks assurance of ongoing contact | Father’s conduct shows some withholding but court-designed remedies (biweekly updates, photo exchanges, regular phone contact, summer/holiday time) | Affirmed — court found Mother slightly more likely to encourage contact but implemented specific order provisions to preserve her relationship; overall custody award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial courts should consider relevant § 5337(h) relocation factors when children — not a parent — would move a significant distance)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must conduct thorough § 5328 best‑interests analysis when modifying custody)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all § 5328(a) factors are required to be considered)
- B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 165 (Pa. Super. 2012) (relocation and custody disputes require consideration of both § 5328 and § 5337 factors)
- Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses limits on citing unpublished decisions)
- M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for custody orders — abuse of discretion)