M.W. v. A.R.
22 MDA 2018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2018Background
- Mother obtained a kindergarten teaching job and moved to Florida in August 2017; she expected Father and the children (V.W., b. 2011; S.W., b. 2015) to follow but Father refused.
- A physical altercation occurred when Mother attempted to take the children to Florida; both parents were charged with harassment.
- Father filed for custody in Pennsylvania (Aug. 25, 2017); Mother filed a proposed relocation notice and a relocation petition.
- After an expedited custody/relocation hearing, the trial court denied Mother's relocation petition, awarded Father primary physical custody, granted Mother partial physical custody (contingent on her residency in Florida), and awarded shared legal custody.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) Father deceived her to thwart relocation, (2) she was the primary caretaker and relocation should be favored, (3–4) the burden of proof was misapplied/should have shifted, (5) the court relied on off‑record internet research, and (6–7) the weight of the evidence supports relocation and primary custody for Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's conduct established a pattern to thwart relocation (5337(h)(5)) | Father deceptively led Mother to believe he consented to move, so factor favors relocation | Father never agreed to relocation; he was passive to avoid conflict | Court found credibility determinations supported Father’s account; factor did not favor relocation |
| Whether Mother's status as primary caretaker should be given special weight | Mother argued primary‑caretaker doctrine requires positive weight favoring her custody/relocation | Father stressed he also performed substantial childcare and primary‑caretaker emphasis is no longer controlling | Court applied custody factors, credited Mother as primary caretaker on some duties but declined to treat that status as dispositive; factors slightly favored Father overall |
| Proper allocation of burden of proof for relocation (5337(i), (l)) | Mother argued burden should be shared or shift because children resided with different parents at hearing | Father argued Mother, as the relocating party, bears burden regardless of temporary residence | Court held Mother, as party proposing relocation, bore burden; court properly applied §§5337(i) and (l) and B.K.M. precedent |
| Whether the trial court’s independent internet research about Mother’s certification was improper and reversible | Research cast doubt on Mother’s certification and credibility; amounted to evidence outside the record and possible bias | Father relied on the court’s factual findings; argued any error was harmless given other evidence | Court agreed research was improper but concluded the error was harmless and did not taint the court’s credibility findings or ultimate decision |
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 credibility in custody cases)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (primary‑caretaker doctrine no longer receives special emphasis under the Child Custody Act)
- B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2012) (burden allocation and effect of relocation prior to hearing under §§5337(i) and (l))
- A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must address §5328 and §5337(h) factors and state reasons at or near decision time)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (custody trial court’s advantage in assessing witnesses; appellate deference)
- Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial courts may not consider evidence outside the record)
- Wood v. Tucker, 332 A.2d 191 (Pa. 1974) (due process right to confront and cross‑examine adverse evidence)
- Moorman v. Tingle, 467 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 1983) (harmless‑error analysis for improperly considered evidence)