M.J. v. S.G.B., M.J. v. S.G.B. No. 3177 EDA 2016

Child born 2009 to unmarried parents who separated in 2010; parents had shared (50/50) physical custody and entered a custody stipulation in 2014 approving shared legal and physical custody.
In May 2016 Mother filed an affidavit to relocate with the child from Monroe County to Havertown Township (Delaware County) and to be primary physical custodian during the school year; Father opposed and sought primary custody.
Evidentiary hearing held August 26, 2016; trial court issued an order (Sept. 9, 2016) granting Mother’s relocation, awarding shared legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother during school year and to Father during summer.
Trial court analyzed all applicable Section 5328(a) best‑interest custody factors and the ten Section 5337(h) relocation factors, finding most custody factors neutral and relocation factors overall favored allowing the move.
Father appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) denying his petition for primary custody, (2) granting Mother’s relocation, and (3) failing to consider evidence adverse to relocation. Appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying Father primary physical custody	Father: Most §5328 factors were neutral or inapplicable; only proximity favored him, so he should be primary custodian	Mother: Both parents fit; relocation requires consideration of §5337(h) relocation factors in addition to §5328	Affirmed — trial court reasonably found parents equally fit and properly considered relocation factors, so no error in custody award
Whether trial court erred in granting Mother’s relocation to Havertown	Father: Mother failed to prove relocation serves child’s best interests; court improperly relied on alleged cultural benefits outside the record	Mother: Relocation advances her education, family stability, and offers educational/cultural opportunities; feasible to preserve father–child relationship	Affirmed — court considered all §5337(h) factors, found relocation improved Mother’s (and child’s) quality of life and preserved Father’s relationship; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Whether trial court failed to consider evidence contrary to relocation	Father: Selected adverse testimony showed court should deny relocation; court ignored contrary evidence	Mother: Court considered all testimony and weighed factors accordingly	Affirmed — father invited appellate reweighing; court’s credibility/weight findings are binding where supported by competent record evidence

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody appeals; defer to trial court on credibility and factual findings)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in custody matters merits utmost respect given witness observation)
Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion in custody context)