R.W.M. v. S.M.F.
1116 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Parents separated in 2012; Mother had primary physical custody of two young children (born 2009 and 2011) and lived in Manheim, Lancaster County with her husband; Father lived in Berks County.
- Father paid child support consistently (~$500/mo). Mother did not work and relied on Husband’s income; Husband had been offered a transfer to Dallas, Texas.
- A September 30, 2015 custody order (by stipulation) awarded shared legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother, and ordered custody exchanges at a midpoint (Oregon Dairy).
- Mother repeatedly failed to meet the court-ordered exchange location; Father often absorbed extra travel time and then curtailed visits; Mother made two unsubstantiated CYS referrals about Father.
- Mother filed a relocation petition to move with the children to Dallas; Father objected and filed contempt petitions for Mother’s failure to comply with exchange orders.
- Trial court denied relocation (finding Mother failed to show move was in children’s best interests under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)), found Mother in willful contempt for failing to comply with exchange terms, and awarded Father counsel fees. Mother appealed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied §5337(h) relocation factors | Trial court misapplied/failed to properly weigh factors and ignored evidence favoring relocation | Trial court correctly considered all ten §5337(h) factors and factual record favored denial | Held: Trial court thoroughly applied §5337(h); no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether denial of relocation was an abuse of discretion / unsupported by evidence | Denial was unreasonable and unsupported by record | Denial reasonable given (1) lack of benefit to children, (2) Husband’s unwillingness to fund child travel, (3) impracticability of preserving Father–child relationship | Held: No abuse of discretion; findings sustainable on record |
| Whether trial court correctly evaluated parental involvement / effect on child relationships | Mother argued court mischaracterized involvement and overstated efforts to thwart Father–child relationship | Father pointed to evidence Mother/Husband encouraged children to call Husband "daddy" and obstructed exchanges | Held: Court’s credibility-based findings (Mother impeded relationship) sustained; factor properly considered in denial |
| Whether contempt finding and counsel-fee sanction were proper | Mother contended contempt finding and fee award were improper/unsupported | Father argued Mother willfully violated order by failing to deliver children to designated exchange and did not remedy noncompliance; counsel fees authorized by statute | Held: Contempt and counsel-fee award were proper (no abuse of discretion); sanction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. 2014) (scope and standard of appellate review in custody matters)
- Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2002) (standard for abuse of discretion and definition of contempt review)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (custody-review principles)
- P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702 (Pa. Super. 2012) (contempt and custody enforcement review)