S.J.S. v. M.J.S.
76 A.3d 541
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Parents separated in 2008; they had a consent custody order (June 2012) giving Mother primary physical custody and Father partial custody (every other weekend and Wednesday evenings). Mother had mailed a relocation notice proposing to move with the children from Erie (Erie County) to Buckingham (Bucks County).
- Father filed for shared custody and objected to relocation; both custody and relocation were tried before Judge Trucilla in July 2012.
- Mother proposed relocation to improve children’s education and finances and to live with her long-term partner (D.M.); she had no firm job lined up in Buckingham and acknowledged relocation would substantially reduce Father’s contact with the children.
- Trial evidence showed children have strong bonds with both parents and extended family in Erie; oldest child preferred to "keep it the same" and was upset by prospect of reduced time with Father.
- The trial court applied both the relocation factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5337) and the custody best‑interest factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328), denied relocation, and ordered Mother to retain primary custody only if she stayed in Erie (if she relocated Father would be primary custodian).
- Superior Court affirmed, finding the court properly weighed statutory factors, did not abuse discretion, and Mother failed to prove relocation served the children’s best interests or that her motives were sufficiently aligned with the children’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by combining custody and relocation analyses instead of first determining primary custody and then applying relocation factors | Trial court should have made an initial custody determination and not allow relocation factors to control custody outcome | Dual analysis was appropriate where custody dispute depended on whether Mother relocated; parties agreed to joint analysis at trial | Affirmed: dual analysis was permissible; court applied §5328 and §5337 together and did not elevate relocation over custody |
| Who bears the burden to prove relocation is in the children’s best interests | Mother contended burden should not be effectively shifted to her or that relocation factors are only a "small corner" of best‑interests analysis | As the proponent of relocation, Mother bears the burden to show relocation benefits the children; both parties must show integrity of motives | Affirmed: Mother bore burden under §5337(i); court reasonably found she failed to prove relocation was in children’s best interest and questioned her motives |
| Weight to give Mother’s role as primary caretaker and daily‑care factor in custody analysis | Mother argued her primary‑caretaker role and daily involvement favored awarding her custody even if she relocated | Father emphasized his strong, consistent bond with children and extensive family network in Erie | Affirmed: trial court acknowledged Mother’s caretaker role but found it did not outweigh harms to children’s relationships with Father and extended family |
| Whether proposed substitute visitation (extended weekends, holidays, summers) adequately preserved Father’s relationship if Mother relocated | Mother argued extended/holiday visitation and summer time would preserve Father’s relationship | Father argued such intermittent contact would destroy the regular, twice‑weekly relationship and extended family support the children currently have | Affirmed: court reasonably found proposed substitutes insufficient to preserve the existing parent‑child relationship and support network |
Key Cases Cited
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (new Child Custody Act applies to relocation and custody proceedings filed after Act’s effective date)
- Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court must keep custody and relocation inquiries under the single best‑interests umbrella and not dissociate custody from relocation improperly)
- Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 906 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court may scrutinize parent’s romantic motives when relocation would disrupt children’s lives)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate standard: trial court findings supported by competent evidence are entitled to deference; review for abuse of discretion)