L.J.L. v. E.N.C., L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016

Background

Parents (never married) share a daughter born April 2012; Mother moved with the child from Coatesville, PA to Marlton/Evesham Township, NJ in November 2015.
Mother filed a custody complaint October 2015; Father filed an emergency petition objecting to the relocation in January 2016.
Parties tried custody/relocation issues at a May 23, 2016 hearing; the trial court announced rulings on the record then entered a written order on the docket August 22, 2016.
Trial court awarded shared legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother, partial physical custody to Father, and permitted Mother’s relocation to New Jersey.
Father appealed, arguing the court failed to properly apply the Child Custody Act best-interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. §5328) and the relocation factors (23 Pa.C.S. §5337), erred in weighing Mother’s failure to give statutory notice, and impermissibly afforded a presumption in Mother’s favor because the move already occurred.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, finding competent evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, that the court considered all required factors, and that Mother’s lack of advance notice was a factor but not dispositive.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
1. Whether trial court abused discretion permitting a 68-mile relocation across state lines	Mother failed to meet burden to show relocation was in child’s best interest; court didn’t adequately assess §5328 and §5337 factors	Relocation is in child’s best interest given Mother’s support system, child’s adjustment, and Father’s work schedule	Affirmed — court considered and weighed §5328 and §5337 factors; findings supported by competent evidence
2. Whether Mother’s failure to give statutory advance notice required denial or return of child	Mother did not provide 60-day notice and thus relocation should be disfavored or child returned	Lack of notice is a factor under §5337(j) but not fatal; court may weigh it and still permit relocation	Affirmed — trial court considered notice failure but permissibly concluded relocation remained in child’s best interest
3. Whether court impermissibly applied a presumption favoring Mother because the move already occurred	Court effectively presumed in favor of relocation due to passage of time and unwillingness to force another move, contrary to §5337(l)	No presumption was applied; court credited testimony and balanced factors despite move having occurred	Affirmed — court did not apply a proscribing presumption; it evaluated credibility and factors and reached a reasonable decision
4. Whether relocation lacked valid supporting reasons and unduly impairs Father’s relationship with child	Move had no sufficient rationale and will impede Father’s time and extended-family contact	Mother moved for safety/emotional support and better job prospects; Father’s existing custodial time had not been thwarted and logistics can preserve meaningful contact	Affirmed — court credited Mother’s reasons, found contact feasible given parenting plan and Father’s schedule, and concluded move would not be contrary to child’s best interests

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 on custody findings)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (respect for trial court discretion in custody matters)
M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard elaborated)
Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion)
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (§5328 factors required in custody orders)
D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (application of §5337 relocation factors)
C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2012) (relocation precedent — no single formula; case-specific analysis)
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (requirement to state reasons on record or in writing per §5323(d))
A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must address §5337(h) relocation factors and set forth reasoning near time of decision)
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2012) (consideration of evidence post-relocation and burdens in relocation cases)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial courts must consider all §5328(a) factors)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency of trial court explanation for factors)
K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deference to credibility findings)
S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2013) (relocation denial where logistics and weak reasons weighed against move)