J-A07028-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
C.A.D. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
A.M.B.
Appellant No. 1430 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
Civil Division at No(s): 2009-1952 CD
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016
Appellant, A.M.B. (Mother), appeals from the August 26, 2015 custody
order denying her request to relocate with the parties’ son, S.D., born in
February 2008, and granting the petition for modification of the existing
custody order filed by Appellee, C.A.D. (Father). After careful review, we
vacate and remand for further proceedings.
When deciding a petition to modify custody, a court
must conduct a thorough analysis of the best
interests of the child based on the relevant Section
5328(a) [of the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§
5321-5340,] factors. E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 80
(Pa. Super. 2011). “All of the factors listed in
section 5328(a) are required to be considered by the
trial court when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v.
J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(emphasis in original). Section 5337(h) requires
courts to consider all relocation factors. E.D., supra
at 81. The record must be clear on appeal that the
trial court considered all the factors. Id.
J-A07028-16
Section 5323(d) provides that a trial court “shall
delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in
open court or in a written opinion or order.” 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). … Section 5323(d) applies to
cases involving custody and relocation. A.M.S. v.
M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2013).
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822-823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parallel citations
omitted).
Upon review of the certified record, we conclude the trial court failed
to “delineate the reasons for its [custody] decision” in open court following
the conclusion of the trial testimony, in a written opinion, or in the subject
order. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Further, in denying Mother’s relocation
petition, the trial court failed to set forth its reasons pursuant to Section
5337(h). In its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion,
the trial court stated that it considered the requisite statutory factors, but it
failed to set forth a specific analysis enumerating all of the Section 5328(a)
and 5337(h) factors. Trial Court Opinion, 10/2/15, at 3-5. As such, we do
not know what facts and which factors the trial court considered when
reaching its custody decision. Without factual findings, we cannot conduct a
meaningful appellate review of Mother’s asserted errors. See 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5323(d); A.V., supra at 823.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing
to consider all of the Section 5328(a) custody factors and Section 5337(h)
relocation factors. See A.V., supra. Accordingly, we vacate the August 26,
-2-
J-A07028-16
2015 custody order and remand for further proceedings, consistent with this
judgment order.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. Case
stricken from argument panel.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/11/2016
-3-