J-S32010-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
R.E.B. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
B.W.B. :
:
Appellant : No. 177 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Civil Division at No(s): CI-17-09587
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 13, 2018
Appellant, B.W.B. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered December
29, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, which granted
primary physical custody of the parties’ children, J.W.B. (born June 2010),
and J.B. (born May 2013) (“the Children”), to Appellee, R.E.B. (“Mother”), and
permitted Mother to relocate to Fort Worth, Texas. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history,
in part, as follows.
On October 28, 2017, [Father] filed a Counter-Affidavit to
[Mother’s] Notice to Relocate. Mother filed a Custody Complaint
and a Petition for Relocation on November 2, 2017. A hearing was
held on December 20, 2017 and a Final Custody and Relocation
Order, granting Mother’s petition to relocate and giving Mother
primary physical custody of the minor children, J.[W.]B. and J.B.,
was issued on December 28, 2017. Father appealed that Order on
January 25, 2018.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32010-18
Mother was born and raised in Longview, Texas. N.T.,
12/20/17 at 17. Father was born and raised in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Id. at 113. Both parents moved to Utah for college
and met in August of 2004. Id. at 114. The parties married on
December 28, 2005. Id. Upon marriage, the parties remained in
Utah: Father continued with his education and Mother worked to
support them. Id. In January of 2010, the parties moved to
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, so Father could accept an internship at
Lancaster General Hospital (“LGH”). Id. at 114. Their first child,
J.[W.]B., was born in June of 2010. Id. at 115. In December,
2012, Father lost his job at LGH because of a sexual harassment
allegation. Id. at 22-23. In April 2013, the parties moved back to
Utah for Father to accept a job at the University of Utah. Id. at
22, 114. Their second child, J.B., was born a month later in May
2013. Id. at 115. Mother was a stay-at-home mom from 2013 to
2014. Id. at 23. Father once again uprooted the family in June of
2014 when he quit his job in Utah and accepted a position at Well
Span in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Id. at 22, 114. Father worked
at Well Span one year before he quit Well Span in August of 2015
to pursue a master’s degree. Id. Father graduated from the
master’s program in August of 2016 and began work at Pinnacle
Health. Id. Father worked at Pinnacle Health for less than a year
before losing his employment. Father has held his latest job for
two months. Id. at 24, 115.
Mother has been employed with Costco Wholesale since
2006. Id. at 13-14. Mother is employed as a Licensed Hearing Aid
Fitter on a limited part-time basis in which she works a two[-]day
week, followed by a three-day week, in rotation. Id. at 11, 18.
Mother does not receive benefits and is paid $27.25 per hour. Id.
at 19. There are no full-time employment opportunities available
to Mother at her current Costco location. Id. at 7. The manager
of her store testified that it is rare for a full-time position to
become available due to the low turn-over-rate at the company
and the long list of employees interested in a full-time position.
Id. at 8. Full-time positions are filled on a seniority basis and
Mother is not very senior in her current store. Id. at 10. Mother
has been offered a full-time position at the Costco in Southlake,
Texas, where she will maintain the same position she has now but
on a full-time basis. Id. at 12. She will make one dollar an hour
-2-
J-S32010-18
less, [i]d. at 14, based on Costco’s cost-of-living determinations.
Id. at 33.
Mother described her relationship with Father as emotionally
abusive. Id. at 26. She described him as manipulating and
controlling. Id. at 27. She said their relationship was good as long
as she went along with what he wanted. Id. It was evident,
through Father’s own evidence and his testimony, that Mother’s
description was accurate. For instance, Father dug through the
trash looking for Mother’s receipts to see where she had been,
kept track of her whereabouts by linking her phone to his
computer, opened mail addressed solely to her, read her personal
journal and searched through her other personal belongings. Id.
at 45, 52, 56-58. He also admitted to his third affair in February
of 2017. Id. at 25. Mother decided in March of 2017 to end the
marriage. Id. at 24. In May 2017, after Father had not moved out
as agreed to by the parties, Mother filed for divorce. Id. at 47.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/18, at 1-2 (unnumbered).
The trial court held a hearing on December 20, 2017. Both Mother and
Father testified on their own behalf. In addition, the trial court heard testimony
from Ron Forotini, the general manager of the Costco in Lancaster
Pennsylvania; Michael Morris, the assistant general manager of the Costco in
South Lake, Texas; Mother’s sister; Terry Dailey, a vocational expert;
neighbors S.S. and T.B.; and the Children’s paternal grandmother. By order
entered December 29, 2017, the trial court permitted Mother to relocate with
the Children to Fort Worth, Texas.
The order granted Mother primary physical custody of the Children, and
Father partial physical custody of the Children. The order provided Father
partial physical custody from the first day after the end of the school year until
the last day before the next school year begins. Further, Father has physical
-3-
J-S32010-18
custody from the first day to the last day of the Thanksgiving or Christmas
break. Father filed a timely notice of appeal as well as a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal.
We begin with Father’s challenges to the trial court’s award of primary
physical custody to Mother. In custody cases under the Child Custody Act,
(“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, our standard of review is as follows.
In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type
and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings
of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of
record, as our role does not include making independent factual
determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and
weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge
who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we
are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences from
its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court’s
conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.
We may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve
an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable
findings of the trial court.
C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
[T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters
should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature
of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on
the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained
by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding
cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed
record.
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
In, we stated the following regarding an abuse of discretion standard.
[W]e are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when
evaluating the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely
an error of judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly
unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is
-4-
J-S32010-18
abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears
from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support
the court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of
evidence.
M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 18-19 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (citations
omitted).
“Our paramount concern in child custody cases is to determine the best
interests of the child.” In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(citations omitted). “The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case
basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s
physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker,
902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
The Act sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must
consider. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16). See also J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33
A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating trial courts are required to consider
“[a]ll of the factors listed in section 5328(a) . . . when entering a custody
order.”)
Father’s argument regarding custody essentially sets forth the custody
factors and simply asserts various factors that Father contends the trial court
should have weighed differently. When considering the § 5328(a) custody
factors, the weight the trial court assigned the evidence, as well as all the
other factors, cannot be disturbed by this Court. See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d
73, 76 (Pa. Super. 2011).
-5-
J-S32010-18
In any event, the trial court thoroughly and reasonably analyzed and
addressed each factor under § 5328(a):
1. Neither party is more likely to encourage and permit
frequent and continuing contact between the children and the
other party. No evidence was presented that communicating with
the children is an issue.
2. The children are currently safe and not at risk of harm.
2.1 Children and Youth Services has not been involved with this
family.
3. Although both parties perform parental duties on behalf of
the children, as stated above, Mother is the primary caretaker
including meals, laundry, medical appointments, church and
school interactions.
4. Mother provides more stability and continuity in the
children’s education and family life. She engages in homework
and parent teacher meetings. Father is active with the children’s
sports teams and enjoys playing with them outdoors.
5. Father has extended family residing in the area including his
mother, father, aunts, uncles, and his brother and brother’s
family. Mother’s sister resides with Mother. Mother’s sister will live
with her in Texas and she has a cousin in the area. Mother’s
mother and father live approximately two hours away and will
relocate to be near Mother. Father has no family in Texas.
6. The children have no other siblings.
7. The children did not testify due to their young age.
8. Neither party has attempted to turn the children against the
other party. Mother kept a calendar in her room counting down to
this hearing which the children viewed. The parties residing
together during this relocation and divorce negatively affects the
children.
-6-
J-S32010-18
9. Both parties maintain a loving and nurturing relationship
with the children adequate for the children’s emotional needs. The
younger child has a closer relationship with Mother than Father.
10. Both parties attend to the daily needs of the children but the
[m]other more so.
11. The parties currently share a residence. Mother proposes to
relocate to Fort Worth, Texas.
12. The parties rely on each other and family to care for the
children.
13. There is a moderate level of conflict between the parents
which should improve when they no longer reside together. The
parties do not communicate.
14. Neither Mother nor Father ha[s] a history of drug or alcohol
abuse.
15. Neither [p]arty has a physical or [m]ental condition
affecting custody.
16. On 11/6/17[,] the parties were ordered to complete the
Focus on the Children seminar within sixty (60) days. Father did
so; Mother has not. Within twenty-four (24) hours Mother shall
provide to Chambers[] a copy of her registration for the seminar
or a similar type seminar in Texas as well as a copy of her
certificate of attendance at the seminar immediately upon
completion. Both parents love their children very much. But for
Father’s multiple and continued infidelities this family would be
intact.
Trial Court Order, 12/29/17. We may not interfere with a trial court’s
conclusions unless they “represent a gross abuse of discretion.” Luminella v.
Marocci, 814 A.2d 711, 716 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). That is
simply not the case here.
-7-
J-S32010-18
We next consider Father’s issues concerning relocation. The party
proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will
serve the best interest of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i)(1). The trial
court must consider the ten relocation factors set forth within § 5337(h) of
the Act. See id., at 81-82 (“Section 5337(h) mandates that the trial court
shall consider all of the factors listed therein, giving weighted consideration to
those factors affecting the safety of the child.”)
In its order, the trial court weighed the custody and relocation factors
as follows.
1. Mother is the primary caretaker of the children. Father has
a fun, enjoyable relationship with the children but it has been
Mother who primarily takes care of the children’s daily needs;
including routine and schedules, attends to their school work, and
provides emotional stability. The children have a close relationship
with their paternal grandparents. Mother wishes to relocate to be
closer to her extended family where she was born and raised plus
has a better job opportunity.
2. The children are doing well in their current school. Given
the young ages of the children, changing schools would not be
detrimental to their education. Also, the children have
experienced moving in the past. The family has moved several
times across the country to accommodate Father’s education and
employment opportunities including twice to Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, from Utah. Father has had four positions in
Lancaster and recently found a job again as a medical practice
manager. (He lost one job due to a sexual harassment allegation).
3. The relocation would create a twenty-two [] hour[-]driving
distance between the parties. Given the distance and limited
financial means of the parties, a relocation will reduce custody for
Father. Both parties would need to commit to making
communication and visitation a priority.
-8-
J-S32010-18
4. The [c]ourt did not speak to the children given their young
age.
5. Both parties encourage the children to have a relationship
with the other parent.
6. The relocation would greatly enhance Mother’s life. Mother
has been a part-time employee of eleven years for Costco, Inc.
Mother enjoys working for the company and is valued by the
company in return. Currently, Mother holds a part-time position
where working an average of twenty-five (25) hours per week. If
Mother relocates, she will be a full–time employee earning more
income and better benefits. Father’s employment history has
been unstable. Mother’s full-time employment will provide
financial stability for her and the children. The relocation would
allow Mother to return to the place she grew up. She would have
family members and friends in the area to lend her support. Only
Father has family in Lancaster County. The relationship between
Mother and Father fractured due to Father’s three affairs. Mother
has no family in the Lancaster area besides her sister who will
relocate with her.
7. Despite the fractured relationship of the parents, they
continue to live in the same home as roommates. This living
arrangement has been stressful. Mother stated the marriage only
worked when she acquiesced to Father’s wishes. Father has
opened and read mail addressed to Mother, tracked her
whereabouts using her cellular phone and has read her personal
journal. Both parents have refused to move out of the marital
home. The current living arrangement is toxic to the children. The
relocation will not only benefit the children by them no longer
residing in a toxic environment but they will also benefit by having
a Mother who is stable, healthy, and independent.
8. Mother’s reasons for wanting to relocate are to be closer to
her home, family, friends, and better employment opportunities.
Father’s main objection to relocating is that he doesn’t know
anyone in Texas. He was born and raised in Lancaster. His family
lives here, but asking Mother to remain in Lancaster causes the
same situation for her, which she has done twice.
-9-
J-S32010-18
9. No evidence was presented that either party physically
abuses the other or abuses the children. Both parties claim they
have been emotionally abused by the other.
10. Father’s vocational expert did not receive communication
from Costco regarding Mother’s work history and future job.
There is no guarantee Mother could secure a job in the Lancaster
area similar to the income and benefits she will receive with her
job offer in Texas. The expert did not know what Mother’s income
and benefits will be when Mother passes her certification in Texas
versus her present situation. Father has an unstable work history
and could end up relocating again to find work[,] however Father’s
expert did not address these issues.
Father participates in outside activities with the children while
Mother does inside activities with the children. Mother is the
disciplinarian and provides more structure and nurture.
Trial Court Order, 12/29/2017.
And in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court further explained:
The [c]ourt considered the ten relocation factors in reaching its
decision per 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5337. … The [c]ourt found Mother to
be a credible witness. Father less so. For instance, Father testified
that maternal grandfather never came to visit them in
Pennsylvania but later indicated that maternal grandfather had
visited twice. [N.T., 12/20/17] at 125. Father testified that Mother
never expressed an interest in moving back to Texas, yet he
applied for a job in Texas upon completion of his undergraduate
degree, [i]d. at 142, which leads the [c]ourt to believe that a
move had been considered.
Mother’s life would improve with her move to Texas. She would
benefit financially by her new position in Texas. Mother is currently
working on average twenty-five (25) hours a week. Id. at 18.
Mother’s current hourly rate is twenty-seven dollars and fifty cents
($27.50) an hour and grossing approximately six hundred eighty-
seven dollars and fifty cents ($687.50) a week. Id. at 19.
Mother’s position upon relocation pays twenty-six dollars and fifty
cents ($26.50) an hour for forty (40) hour per week. Id. at 9, 33.
Mother’s gross weekly salary upon relocation is one thousand sixty
- 10 -
J-S32010-18
dollars ($1060). Mother will therefore be grossing three hundred
and seventy-two dollars and fifty cents ($372.50) more a week,
which means a yearly increase of nineteen thousand three
hundred and seventy dollars ($19,370). This is clearly a financial
benefit. Additionally, she will be able to continue with the same
employer she has worked for since 2006, working in a job she
enjoys. In Texas, she will be promoted to a full-time position
including benefits. Id. at 63. This will greatly increase Mother’s
quality of life. Mother will be receiving other benefits such as
health insurance[,] which is an added benefit to Mother and the
children given how frequently Father changes jobs.
Father presented a vocational expert who claimed that the area
Mother is moving to has a higher cost-of-living. Id. at 87.
However, Mother testified that the reason she is being paid one
dollar less per hour by Costco is because that area has a lower
cost-of-living. Id. at 33. Mother testified that passing her hearing
aid fitters exam was not a concern. Id. The [c]ourt believes
Mother’s assessment and Father presented no evidence to sway
the [c]ourt otherwise. The [v]ocational expert also testified that
Mother could find a comparable position locally to the one she was
offered in Texas. The [c]ourt was not persuaded by the vocational
expert who presented a generic listing of jobs without any
specifics as to the duties, hours and benefits of those jobs nor any
testimony specific to Mother being able to obtain those jobs. Id.
at 85. Also, the expert’s credibility was lessened when the expert
never spoke to Mother’s current employer, never spoke to anyone
in the Texas store about Mother’s new position, nor did she do any
analysis of Mother’s earnings once she becomes licensed in Texas
and obtains her expected hourly wage. Id. at 92, 94.
Mother’s life would improve with her move to Texas because she
would benefit emotionally. Mother was credible when she
described her relationship with Father was good as long as she
went along with everything Father wanted. Id. at 27. She testified
that Father was manipulative and controlling. Id. Mother not only
testified to this[,] but Father admitted to controlling and
manipulative behavior[,] but did not/could not acknowledge that
behavior as a problem. He admitted he tracked Mother’s
whereabouts by her phone, “but not that often”. Id. at 144. He
admitted he read her personal journal. Id. at 143. He presented
her mail, that he had opened, on cross examination of the
- 11 -
J-S32010-18
[m]other. Id. at 52. After Father’s third affair and dissolution of
the marriage, Mother needed to relocate for family and full-time
employment. Id. at 38. Mother’s only support is her sister who
moved in with Mother two months ago but would move to Texas
to reside with Mother and the boys. Mother is able to reconnect
with family and friends and receive support in Texas. Mother has
a very close relationship with her sister and parents. All were
present at the courthouse the day of the hearing. Her sister put
her life on hold to come to Lancaster to give Mother support as
her marriage dissolves. Id. at 75. Sister plans on obtaining
employment around Mother’s schedule to help with childcare. Id.
at 72. The [c]ourt does not believe the 1 1/2-2 hour distance
between Mother and maternal grandparents will be a barrier, plus
maternal grandparents will move closer to Mother. Id. at 64.
In addition to Mother’s life improving, the children’s lives will also
improve. Besides the benefit to having a happy, healthy,
independent mother, the children will also derive their own direct
benefits from the move. Both parents testified that the public
school the children are assigned to is not adequate to meet the
parents’ educational expectations. Id. at 28, 119. The parents
currently have the children enrolled in a local nonpublic school.
Both parents testified that this is a financial strain for them and
have been in conversations with the school about their inability to
pay. Id. at 29, 55, 138-139. If an agreement [on] tuition is not
reached, the children will need to attend the public school that the
parents have jointly decided is not in the children’s best interest.
Upon relocation, the children will be enrolled in a highly regarded
public school which has many enrichment and afterschool
activities at no cost to the parents. Id. at 36.
Adequate substitute partial custody arrangements could be made
to preserve the relationship between Father and the children when
granting relocation. Father will have the children all summer[,]
which coincides with Father enjoying outside activities with the
boys. Id. at 96. Also, Mother is very supportive and encouraging
of the boys’ relationship with their Father. Id. at 40. Furthermore,
Mother credibly testified that the eldest child has taken on an
emotional caretaker role of Father because of Father’s grief over
the breakup of the marriage. Id. at 67. The eldest child needs to
be a child[,] not ... Father’s counselor.
- 12 -
J-S32010-18
The [c]ourt found Mother more credible when she testified that
she was the primary caretaker of the children. Mother testified
that Father was not around much prior to the separation. Id. at
42. Since the separation, Father has begun to do more for the
boys, however[,] Mother primarily takes care of the children’s
daily needs, including routines and schedules, attends to their
school work, provides emotional[] stability, cooks their meals,
prepares them for school in the morning, attends their
parent/teacher conferences, washes the laundry, handles their
medical appointments, and attends to their church and school
activities. Id. at 30. Father[] also plays basketball up to three
nights a week. Id. at 118. The [c]ourt did not find the testimony
of the two neighbors persuasive as they never saw any
interactions between Mother and the children as opposed to
seeing Father play with the children outside. Id. at 96, 102.
Father argued Mother’s real motive to move was a relationship
with a gentleman in Texas. Father, after invading Mother’s privacy
and reading, copying and disseminating her private writings,
decided that she was pursuing a relationship in Texas. Mother was
believable when she emphatically denied being in a relationship
with anyone in Texas. Id. at 58. The gentleman Father mentioned
is a childhood friend who is presently engaged to marry someone
else. Mother’s most credible statement was when she testified,
“Now, I’ll tell you right now, I am not moving to Texas for a guy.
I have moved across the country three times for a guy, and I will
never do it again.” Id. Mother met her burden of proving the need
for her to relocate and her relocation is in the best interests of the
children.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/18 (unnumbered 2-5).
Father’s eight issues concerning relocation overlap. At their core, the
issues dispute the trial court’s findings of fact and determinations regarding
credibility and weight of the evidence. Under the aforementioned standard of
review applicable in custody matters, the trial court’s findings of fact and
determinations regarding credibility and weight of the evidence are not
- 13 -
J-S32010-18
disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. As we stated in King v. King, 889
A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005):
It is not this Court’s function to determine whether the trial court
reached the ‘right’ decision; rather, we must consider whether,
‘based on the evidence presented, giv[ing] due deference to the
trial court’s weight and credibility determinations,’ the trial court
erred or abused its discretion. . . .
(quoting Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
We briefly explain why Father’s issue have no merit. Father takes issue
with the trial court’s assertion Father lost one of his jobs due to sexual
harassment, arguing, “there is no evidence of Father losing his job because of
sexual harassment.” Father’s Brief, at 51. However, Mother testified, “I know
what [Father] told me. There was a sexual harassment filed -- case filed
against him.” N.T., 12/20/17, at 23.
Father also asserts that the trial court improperly found Mother would
benefit financially from the move to Texas, asserting there “was no
comparison to Mother’s actual earnings in Lancaster to her proposed earnings
in a fulltime position in Texas…” Father’s Brief, at 32. He also asserts that the
trial court erred because his vocational expert testified that Forth Worth, Texas
has a higher cost of living than Lancaster and that the benefit would be offset
by the cost of travel.
Mother testified that she began looking to relocate to Texas when Father
lost his job at Pinnacle because she did not believe Father was stable. See
N.T., 12/20/17, at 47-48. Mother located a position at Costco in Texas that
- 14 -
J-S32010-18
would offer full-time employment. There is no full-time position available in
the Lancaster store. See id., at 7. Initially, Mother would earn $23.25 an hour
but she would earn $26.25 an hour after receiving her Texas license. See id.,
at 33. Costco pays less because of the cost of living in Texas. See id. Mother
will work forty hours per week, and the job includes benefits. See id. at 63.
In Pennsylvania, Mother earned $27.25 an hour for part-time work. See id.
at 19. Because she was “limited part-time,” she worked 40 hours every two
weeks, although she had opportunities to pick up additional time. Id., at 18-
19. The trial court credited this testimony to conclude that Mother would
experience a substantial economic benefit from the move to Texas.
Father argues that the trial court committed an error of law and an
abuse of discretion by placing the burden of proof on Father to establish his
potential earnings in Fort Worth, Texas. Father also asserts that the trial court
did not find his vocational expert credible because she did not perform an
assessment of Father’s earning capacity in Texas.
The trial court’s order states:
10. Father’s vocational expert did not receive communication
from Costco regarding Mother’s work history and future job.
There is no guarantee Mother could secure a job in the Lancaster
area similar to the income and benefits she will receive with her
job offer in Texas. The expert did not know what Mother’s income
and benefits will be when Mother passes her certification in Texas
versus her present situation. Father has an unstable work history
and could end up relocating again to find work[;] however[,]
Father’s expert did not address these issues.
Trial Court Order, 12/29/17 (unnumbered at 3).
- 15 -
J-S32010-18
Contrary to Father’s argument, the trial court did not place the burden
on Father to prove his earning capacity in Texas. Rather, the trial court faulted
Father’s vocational expert for failing to communicate with Costco, and for
failing to determine Mother’s income and benefits in Texas. The trial court did
not fault his expert for failing to determine Father’s income potential in Texas.
Father asserts the trial court erred by concluding Mother would have
more family support in Texas. However, Mother testified that her sister will
move with her to Forth Worth, and her parents live 175 miles away and are
willing to move to Dallas/Fort Worth to assist her. See N.T., 12/20/17, at 64.
Further, Mother’s cousin lives in the area. Mother has no family in
Pennsylvania. See id., at 38.
Father also claims that the trial court failed to give “sufficient weight” to
Mother’s purported romantic interest in a “male friend” in Texas. Father’s
Brief, at 49. Father relies on portions of Mother’s journal that Father
discovered when he moved her lunchbox from the stove. He testified that it
felt heavier so he opened it, discovered Mother’s journal, and found “pages of
her communication and contact with this gentleman.” N.T., 12/20/17, at 143.
The journal includes dates and three entries that Father asserts show Mother
wishes to relocate because of this romantic interest. See id., Defendant’s
Exhibit 7. Father’s counsel used the journal entries to cross-examine Mother,
who testified that the man is a family friend she met when she was 14 years
old who is engaged to someone else. See id., at 58. Mother testified, “[n]ow,
- 16 -
J-S32010-18
I’ll tell you right now, I am not moving to Texas for a guy. I have moved
across the country three times for a guy, and I will never do it again. And no,
I’m not in a relationship with him.” Id. at 58-59. The trial court found Mother’s
testimony believable.
Father similarly assails the trial court’s findings regarding the respective
schools in Lancaster and Fort Worth, the trial court’s determinations regarding
who provided care for the Children, who took the Children to church and
activities, as well as its conclusions regarding the availability of alternate
arrangements for custody, the weight to be given to the Children’s need for
stability and continuity, and the impact the relocation would have on the
Children. Father, in essence, questions the trial court’s conclusions and
assessments and seeks this Court to re-find facts, re-weigh evidence, and/or
re-assess credibility to his view of the evidence. This, as we explained, we
cannot do.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/18
- 17 -