M.J.(E.)G. v. D.M.E.
1127 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Parents divorced in 2008; twins B.E. (non-verbal special needs) and R.E. (then 14) had been primarily in Mother’s custody; Father had alternate weekend visitation.
- Mother moved from Bellwood to Pittsburgh (≈90 miles) in February 2017 after obtaining employment and did not file the notice of proposed relocation before moving.
- Father filed a Petition to Prohibit Relocation; trial court issued ex parte relief and then, after hearings, awarded physical custody of R.E. to Father while allowing B.E. to remain with Mother.
- Mother filed a formal Notice/Petition for Relocation (for both twins) and sought emergency relief to vacate the custody change; the court temporarily maintained custody of R.E. with Father pending the relocation hearing.
- After a June 2017 hearing, the trial court denied Mother’s Petition for Relocation as to R.E., granted relocation as to B.E., and issued a written opinion emphasizing R.E.’s mature preference to remain with Father and attend her existing school.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied §5337 relocation factors and over-weighted child’s preference | Trial court relied too heavily on R.E.’s preference; most relocation factors favor Mother | Child’s mature preference, school stability, and best-interest analysis support denying relocation | Court upheld: trial court properly weighed factors, child’s mature preference was persuasive and supported by record |
| Whether separating the twin siblings was error | Siblings presumptively should remain together; court erred by separating twins | Best interests of each child govern; R.E.’s preference and needs warranted separation | Waived on appeal for lack of authority; on merits court found separation proper under unique facts and R.E.’s mature preference |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in its fact-findings / credibility determinations | Mother contends findings are unreasonable and show abuse of discretion | Trial court’s findings are supported by testimony and credibility assessments | Appellate court defers to trial court; no abuse of discretion found |
| Whether trial court neglected required relocation/custody factors | Mother asserts court failed to weigh all §5337 factors equally | Court addressed the mandated factors and adequately considered related custody factors where applicable | Court sufficiently considered factors (including custody factor overlap) and any omission did not prejudice outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review and best-interests focus in custody decisions)
- Luminella v. Marcocci, 814 A.2d 711 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate review limited to abuse of discretion in custody matters)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Child Custody Act governs custody proceedings after 2011)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court may determine which custody/relocation factors are most salient)
- McMillen v. McMillen, 602 A.2d 845 (Pa. 1992) (importance of considering a child’s expressed preference, including maturity and reasons)
- S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (dual analysis of custody and relocation when dispute arises from a parent’s proposed move)