Y.L.P. v. R.R.P., 1189 MDA 2017

Background

Mother sought to relocate with the parties’ children (ages 10 and 8) from Fairfield, PA to Netcong, NJ to live with her significant other and his children; she filed notice April 25, 2017.
Father (resident of Cumberland County, PA) opposed relocation and filed a counter-affidavit and a petition seeking primary physical custody.
Before the relocation order, parents shared week-on/week-off equal physical custody; relocation would make equal shared custody infeasible (approx. 150 miles / ~2h45m apart).
Trial court conducted in-camera interview of the children and an expedited trial on June 16, 2017; court granted Mother’s relocation petition and awarded Mother primary physical custody by order dated June 28, 2017.
Court found many best-interest and relocation factors favored both parents, but emphasized Mother’s greater availability (stay-at-home), the children’s sibling relationship in Mother’s household, and Mother’s legitimate motive to stabilize her family unit.
Court preserved substantial Father time via alternating weekends during the school year, extended summer time, and a Christmas block; exchanges at midpoint. Appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether court erred in approving Mother’s relocation under 23 Pa.C.S. §5337	Relocation serves children’s best interests: stabilizes Mother’s family, Mother available as stay-at-home parent, children have sibling in Mother’s home	Relocation would substantially impair Father’s custodial time and is not in children’s best interests	Court approved relocation; appellate court affirmed (Mother met burden; best-interest analysis supports relocation)
Whether court erred in awarding Mother primary physical custody	Mother better able to provide daily care and stability, presence of sibling bond, and legitimate motive to relocate	Father sought primary custody to prevent impairment of his time and preserve current equal schedule	Court awarded primary physical custody to Mother while structuring significant partial custody for Father; appellate court affirmed
Whether trial court considered required statutory factors (custody and relocation) and stated reasons sufficiently	Court applied §5328 and §5337 factors, considered child safety-weighted factors and set forth reasons	Father argued trial court failed to meet burden/insufficient findings	Trial court explicitly analyzed and balanced statutory factors; opinion satisfied §5323(d); appellate court found no abuse of discretion
Whether Father’s relationship with children can be preserved post-relocation	N/A (Mother proposed schedule to preserve Father’s relationship)	Father argued preservation infeasible / insufficient	Court found relationship could be preserved via substantial, regular custodial time (weekends, summers, holiday blocks); accepted by appellate court

Key Cases Cited

S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard and burden rules under Custody Act)
E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Child Custody Act and application to relocation petitions)
M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must consider enumerated §5328 factors; no particular level of detail required)
R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (deference to trial court on credibility and best-interest determinations)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (paramount concern is best interests of the child and requirement to consider statutory factors)
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (custody analysis must incorporate relocation factors when relocation is at issue)
L.F.F. v. P.R.F., 828 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2003) (policy favoring siblings being raised together absent compelling reasons)
C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirement that trial court delineate reasons under §5323(d))
A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2013) (§5323(d) applies to custody and relocation proceedings)