M.P. v. M.P.
54 A.3d 950
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Mother filed a custody petition on July 14, 2011 seeking permission to take her daughter to Ecuador for three weeks.
- Trial testimony showed Mother had sole legal custody and Father had previously had supervised visitation; Father had not visited for about eighteen months.
- The court granted a protection from abuse order in 2009, awarding Mother primary custody and limiting Father to supervised visits.
- On November 15, 2011 the court entered an order prohibiting the trip to Ecuador, without explanation.
- The parties had agreed to maintain the status quo (Mother sole legal custody; Father supervised partial physical custody) on October 26, 2011, prior to the hearing.
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, and granted Mother permission to travel to Ecuador with the child without Father’s consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did den[ial] of travel violate sole legal custody? | Mother, as sole legal custodian, acted in the child’s best interests. | Court favored Father’s input and risk concerns under shared custody framework. | Court abused discretion; Mother granted travel. |
| Did the court rely on off-record, internet-sourced information? | Decision relied on relevant record evidence; no off-record reliance. | Court used internet sources to inform risk of Hague compliance. | Court impermissibly relied on off-record internet information. |
| Did the court fail to provide a proper on-record rationale under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(d)? | The court must delineate reasons on the record or in writing. | Rationale was provided in later 1925(a)(2)(H) opinion. | Failure to provide timely, on-record rationale violated statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super. 1993) (shared legal custody cannot provide final authority to one parent)
- Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abusive discretion review in custody matters; best interests standard)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for evaluating custody decisions; best interests)
- Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court cannot rely on off-record evidence)