J.G. v. J.G., J.G. v. J.G. No. 2743 EDA 2016

Background

Parents (Mother and Father) share legal custody of their son A.G. (b. Oct 2007); Mother had primary physical custody under a stipulated Jan 13, 2014 order; Father had partial physical custody (every other weekend and Wednesday overnights).
Mother sought to relocate with A.G. from Pennsylvania to Boca Raton, Florida (filed notice Apr 23, 2015) and petitioned to modify the custody order; Father opposed and sought equally shared physical custody (or increased time).
A custody evaluator (Dr. Anthony Pisa) was appointed by agreement and concluded relocation was not recommended: the child’s loss of contact with Father and extended family would outweigh benefits to Mother.
The trial court held multi-day hearings, denied Mother’s relocation motion and petition to modify custody, denied Mother’s petition for special relief (to change Hebrew school), denied Father’s request for 50/50 custody, but granted Father two additional Thursday-to-Friday overnights per month.
Mother appealed, raising challenges about the court’s treatment of statutory custody and relocation factors, factual findings (family ties, education, child preference), weighting of evidence, and the special-relief ruling.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Relocation to Florida	Relocation is in child’s best interest (better support system, health, quality of life, education)	Relocation would sever meaningful contact with Father and extended family; not in child’s best interest	Denied—trial court found the evidence (including Pisa report) supported that relocation would harm child’s relationships and not improve child’s quality of life
Modify custody to shared (50/50)	Mother opposed; (mostly Father’s petition) Father argued equal custody or substantially similar time if relocation allowed	Father sought shared custody or more time; court should allow increased time	Shared 50/50 denied; trial court found Father had not demonstrated taking full advantage of current time; 50/50 would be a disruptive change
Increase Father’s custodial time (alternative)	Mother argued Father often failed to exercise existing time so should not get more	Father argued he has a close, capable parenting relationship warranting more overnight time	Granted in part—court added two Thursday overnights per month based on Father’s demonstrated relationship and ability to care for child
Petition for special relief (Hebrew school transfer)	Mother sought immediate withdrawal from Temple Beth Hillel and enrollment elsewhere	Father opposed; court should leave current arrangements	Denied—court found no persuasive basis to require withdrawal or transfer; special-relief petition adjudicated and denied

Key Cases Cited

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court in custody cases)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial-court discretion in custody determinations deserves utmost respect)
Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasizing the trial court’s unique opportunity to assess witness credibility)
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best-interests standard considers all factors affecting child’s well-being)
Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 2004) (case discussing the best-interests test)
Banfield v. Cortes, 110 A.3d 155 (Pa. 2015) (issues inadequately briefed are waived)
In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (waiver where appellant fails to develop issues with authority)
Tripathi v. Tripathi, 787 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2001) (burden on relocating parent to show significant quality-of-life improvement)
Boyer v. Schake, 799 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2002) (sensitive case-by-case balancing in relocation disputes)
Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court should minimize sacrifice to noncustodial parent when possible)
Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (narrow appellate review of custody orders)
Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for trial court)
K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate interference only where order is manifestly unreasonable)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must consider statutory factors and provide reasons, but need not enumerate each factor verbatim)