S.M. v. R.J.
S.M. v. R.J. No. 1802 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 21, 2017Background
- Mother (S.M.) filed for custody and sought to relocate with her son E.J. (born Jan. 2012) from Susquehanna County, PA to Foxworth, Mississippi; Father (R.J.) opposed relocation.
- Parties were unmarried, had co-parented without a prior custody order, and had historically cooperated; Mother had primary caregiving role but Father had substantial contact.
- Mother filed notice of proposed relocation and attendant petitions; interim hearings occurred and Mother was permitted limited travel but ultimately a full custody/relocation hearing was held over multiple dates.
- Trial court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother, but denied Mother's relocation petition based on analysis under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h) (relocation factors) and § 5328(a) (best‑interest factors).
- Court found Mother failed to meet her burden to show relocation was in child’s best interest: concerns included distance/logistics, Father’s substantial relationship with child, weak evidence of financial/educational benefit in Mississippi, lack of demonstrated stable employment plan, and hostile communications by Mother toward Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion/erred in denying relocation | Mother argued court misweighed/overemphasized certain relocation factors and imposed unknown burdens; relocation would improve her life and provide employment | Father argued relocation would severely impair his relationship with child, logistics prevent meaningful custody, and Mother failed to prove benefits | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably applied §5337(h) and §5328(a) and Mother failed to meet burden to show relocation was in child's best interest |
| Whether trial court adequately considered statutory factors and explained reasons | Mother contended court ignored/failed to apply applicable precedent and factors properly | Father asserted court considered all required factors and articulated reasons in written opinion | Court held trial court sufficiently addressed required relocation and custody factors in written opinion per §5323(d) and precedent |
| Whether proposed employment in Mississippi justified relocation (financial/quality‑of‑life benefit) | Mother claimed $40,000 campground manager job and emotional benefit from being near fiancé | Father pointed to lack of business records, no paystubs, tenuous fiancé presence, and travel costs undermining claimed benefit | Court held evidentiary support for employment/financial benefit was inadequate; factor weighed against relocation |
| Whether relocation would preserve child’s relationship with non‑relocating parent | Mother proposed alternate visitation/summer schedule and monthly trips back | Father argued geographic distance (16–20 hour drive) and costs would substantially reduce contact and weaken relationship | Court held distance/logistics would materially impair Father–child relationship; factor weighed against relocation |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review in custody matters is abuse of discretion and trial court credibility findings are entitled to deference)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider §5337(h) relocation factors and give weight to child safety)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must consider all §5328(a) custody factors)
- Graham v. Graham, 794 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental desire to relocate does not automatically prevail; child’s best interest controls)
- D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. 2016) (custodial parent seeking relocation bears burden to prove relocation is in child’s best interest)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no required level of detail for trial court explanation so long as factors are considered)
- Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of burden when a custody order exists prior to relocation request)
- C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2012) (relocation disputes are fact‑specific and decided case‑by‑case)