Penzerro, J. v. Gadd, J., 898 WDA 2021

Background

Mother (Julia Gadd) and Father (Jacob Penzerro) shared physical custody of daughter L.C.P. (b. 2015) on an alternating-week schedule by consent order (Jan. 2019).
L.C.P. was diagnosed with Friedreich Ataxia and left ventricular hypertrophy; she requires physical/occupational therapy and specialty care at Akron Children’s Hospital (Ohio).
Mother proposed relocating from Brookfield, OH to Cambridge Springs, PA (to live with her fiancé) and sought a modified custody schedule that would reduce Father’s weekday custody and increase his weekend time.
Relocation would substantially increase travel time to Akron specialists (from about 1 hour to ~1 hour 45 minutes one-way) and require changing some local providers; Mother planned to keep current residency during a transition year but ultimately sought the move.
Fiancé testified he purchased and remodeled the Cambridge Springs home, could sell and move closer to preserve the custody schedule without financial hardship, and the home was not yet fully wheelchair accessible.
Trial court denied relocation (July 12, 2021); Superior Court affirmed, finding Mother failed to prove the relocation served the child’s best interests under the Child Custody Act.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gadd)	Defendant's Argument (Penzerro)	Held
1) Did Mother prove relocation would be in the child’s best interest under §5337(h)?	Relocation would improve Mother’s stability, provide a two‑adult household, and benefit child emotionally and materially.	Relocation would double travel to specialists, disrupt therapy rapport, and reduce Father’s weekday contact; less intrusive alternatives exist (fiancé could move).	Denied – court found none of the relocation factors favored move; relocation would harm child’s access to care and existing shared custody.
2) Did the court err in weighing Mother’s role as primary caregiver and medical provider?	Mother has provided most medical care and would better care for child if relocated.	Father actively participated in care, adjusted work to be available, and the record does not show he is unwilling or unable to help.	Denied – court credited evidence that Father participates and Mother did not show relocation was necessary for medical care.
3) Did the court give undue weight to increased travel time and provider changes?	Additional travel is minor and manageable; new local providers could be found.	The longer trips (≈3.5 hr roundtrip) and loss of established therapist relationships materially burden the child with special needs.	Denied – court found increased travel and disruption to therapy significant and weighed against relocation.
4) Was it improper to consider fiancé’s willingness/ability to move and his home improvements?	Fiancé’s willingness is irrelevant and moving would impose hardship on Mother/fiancé; their plans justified relocation.	Fiancé’s willingness to relocate preserves child’s relationship with Father and makes less disruptive alternatives feasible.	Denied – court properly considered fiancé’s testimony as relevant to child’s best interest and feasibility of alternatives.

Key Cases Cited

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (scope and standard of appellate review of custody findings).
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to trial court on credibility and weight in custody cases).
King v. King, 889 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 2005) (review for abuse of discretion in custody matters).
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses informs credibility determinations).
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court determines which custody/relocation factors are most salient).
A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when relocation involves custody, court must consider all relocation and custody factors).
Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s firsthand observations cannot be fully conveyed on appeal).