R.A.L. v. L.S.L.
R.A.L. v. L.S.L. No. 269 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Parents divorced; Mother relocated to Sunapee, New Hampshire; Father remained in Kingston, Pennsylvania; child resides in Pennsylvania.
- After protracted proceedings, the trial court held custody hearings and awarded Father sole legal and physical custody; Mother received supervised partial physical custody and daily unsupervised phone contact.
- Trial court denied Mother’s Petition for Relocation as moot because custody remained with Father.
- Mother appealed, arguing: (1) erroneous application/weighing of the Section 5328 best‑interest factors (seeking primary custody), (2) failure to apply Section 5337 relocation factors (seeking relocation to New Hampshire), and (3) improper admission/reliance on the guardian ad litem (GAL) report.
- The trial court’s written opinion analyzed credibility, summarized testimony, and set out consideration of the Section 5328 factors; the appellate court deferred to credibility findings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied/failed to properly weigh 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 best‑interest factors and should have awarded Mother primary legal and physical custody | Mother: court misweighed many §5328 factors (1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15); argues Father limits her contact, relies on babysitters, and failed on daily care/education; relocation and other circumstances weigh for Mother | Father: trial court properly assessed testimony and evidence; Father more likely to provide stability and encourage contact; credibility issues favor Father | Affirmed. Appellate court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and factual weighing; record supports award of sole legal and physical custody to Father. |
| Whether trial court erred by not applying 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 relocation factors and denying Mother’s requested relocation | Mother: relocation factors would favor moving child to New Hampshire (family support, Mother’s reasons for move) | Father: custody remains with Father so relocation analysis is moot because child will not move | Affirmed. Court deemed relocation moot because Father retained custody and child would remain in Pennsylvania; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether trial court erred in admitting/relied on GAL’s report | Mother: GAL report was cumulative, recycled from prior proceedings, insufficiently investigated under § 5334, and should not have been relied on | Father/Respondent: GAL report was part of the record; trial court may consider it along with other evidence | Issue waived on appeal. Mother failed to raise the claim in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; appellate court declined to consider it. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility and best‑interest analysis)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in custody matters merits utmost respect)
- W.C.F. v. M.G., 115 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2015) (child custody under the Child Custody Act and § 5328 factors)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all § 5328 factors)
- M.E.V. v. F.P.W., 100 A.3d 670 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court must provide reasons on the record but no required level of detail beyond showing factors were considered)
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (relocation provisions under § 5337 apply when child’s change of residence affects non‑relocating parent’s custodial rights)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility or disturb trial court’s factual findings)
- C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2016) (deference to trial court on credibility and weight of evidence)
- Ramer v. Ramer, 914 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived on appeal)