J-A05009-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
B.D. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
M.D. :
:
Appellee : No. 1292 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Dated August 8, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): FD18-007885
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 18, 2019
Appellant, B.D. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which granted primary physical
custody of the parties’ three minor children (“Children”), to Appellee, M.D.
(“Mother”), and granted Mother’s petition for relocation. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Father and Mother married in Florida in 2007, and later they moved to
Pennsylvania. During their marriage, the parties had three children. Following
a tumultuous relationship involving alcoholism, anger issues, and abuse by
Father toward Mother, the parties separated in January 2018. Since their
separation, Mother has had sole physical custody of Children; and Father has
paid no support since April 2018. The parties are in the process of divorce.
On July 6, 2018, Mother filed a Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) order
J-A05009-19
against Father, based on a threatening text message. A few days later, on
July 10, 2018, Father filed a custody action requesting shared physical
custody. On July 13, 2018, Mother filed an answer and counterclaim for
primary custody and a notice of relocation, as Mother had received a job offer
in Florida. Father filed a counter affidavit regarding the relocation on July 18,
2018. The following day, the parties entered into a consent order to resolve
the pending PFA action against Father. The court also scheduled an expedited
hearing for August 2, 2018. Following the scheduled hearing, the court issued
an order and opinion on August 8, 2018, granting Mother’s relocation request
and establishing the post-relocation custody schedule. The custody
arrangement provided for Mother to exercise physical custody of Children in
Florida during the school year, while Father would exercise custody in
Allegheny County for summer break, as well as during holidays. On
September 7, 2018, Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a
contemporaneous concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father raises the following issue on appeal:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR RELOCATION FOR SIX RELATED
REASONS, WHICH FATHER ARGUES AS SUBPARTS IN HIS
BRIEF ON APPEAL?
(Father’s Brief at 5-6).
In reviewing a child custody order:
-2-
J-A05009-19
[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is
abuse of discretion. This Court 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, this Court must defer
to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and
thus viewed 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.
S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation
omitted). Additionally,
[O]ur Legislature adopted a new Child Custody Act (“Act”),
effective on January 24, 2011. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321–
5340. The new Act applies to “disputes relating to child
custody matters” filed after the effective date of the new
law. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5321. In E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76
(Pa.Super. 2011), we held that the Act applied to any
proceeding, including a petition for relocation, initiated by a
filing made after the effective date of the Act.
Id. With respect to a custody order, Section 5328(a) provides:
§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody
(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court
shall determine the best interest of the child by considering
all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those
factors which affect the safety of the child, including the
following:
(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit
frequent and continuing contact between the child and
another party.
(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party
-3-
J-A05009-19
or member of the party’s household, whether there is a
continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party
and which party can better provide adequate physical
safeguards and supervision of the child.
(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)
(relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement
with protective services).
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on
behalf of the child.
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s
education, family life and community life.
(5) The availability of extended family.
(6) The child’s sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based
on the child’s maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against
the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence
where reasonable safety measures are necessary to
protect the child from harm.
(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving,
stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the
child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.
(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily
physical, emotional, developmental, educational and
special needs of the child.
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or
ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the
willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with
one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from
abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness
-4-
J-A05009-19
or inability to cooperate with that party.
(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or
member of a party’s household.
(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or
member of a party’s household.
(16) Any other relevant factor.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). In expressing the reasons for its decision, “there is
no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is
required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody
decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331,
336 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710, 68 A.3d 909 (2013). A
court’s explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately addresses the
relevant custody factors, complies with Section 5323(d). Id.
The new Act defines “Relocation” as “[a] change in residence of the child
which significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating party to exercise
custodial rights.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a); C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417,
422-25 (Pa.Super. 2012). Section 5337 sets forth the procedures and factors
governing relocation in relevant part as follows:
§ 5337. Relocation
(a) Applicability.—This section applies to any proposed
relocation.
(b) General rule.—No relocation shall occur unless:
(1) every individual who has custody rights to the child
consents to the proposed relocation; or
-5-
J-A05009-19
(2) the court approves the proposed relocation.
(c) Notice.—
(1) The party proposing the relocation shall notify every
other individual who has custody rights to the child.
(2) Notice, sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, shall be given no later than:
(i) the 60th day before the date of the proposed
relocation; or
(ii) the tenth day after the date that the individual
knows of the relocation, if:
(A) the individual did not know and could not
reasonably have known of the relocation in
sufficient time to comply with the 60–day notice;
and
(B) it is not reasonably possible to delay the date
of relocation so as to comply with the 60–day
notice.
(3) Except as provided by section 5336 (relating to
access to records and information), the following
information, if available, must be included with the notice
of the proposed relocation:
(i) The address of the intended new residence.
(ii) The mailing address, if not the same as the
address of the intended new residence.
(iii) Names and ages of the individuals in the new
residence, including individuals who intend to live in
the new residence.
(iv) The home telephone number of the intended new
residence, if available.
(v) The name of the new school district and school.
-6-
J-A05009-19
(vi) The date of the proposed relocation.
(vii) The reasons for the proposed relocation.
(viii) A proposal for a revised custody schedule.
(ix) Any other information which the party proposing
the relocation deems appropriate.
(x) A counter-affidavit as provided under subsection
(d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposed
relocation and the modification of a custody order.
(xi) A warning to the nonrelocating party that if the
nonrelocating party does not file with the court an
objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days
after receipt of the notice, that party shall be
foreclosed from objecting to the relocation.
(4) If any of the information set forth in paragraph (3)
is not known when the notice is sent but is later made
known to the party proposing the relocation, then that
party shall promptly inform every individual who received
notice under this subsection.
(d) Objection to proposed relocation.—
(1) A party entitled to receive notice may file with the
court an objection to the proposed relocation and seek a
temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation.
The nonrelocating party shall have the opportunity to
indicate whether he objects to relocation or not and
whether he objects to modification of the custody order
or not. If the party objects to either relocation or
modification of the custody order, a hearing shall be held
as provided in subsection (g)(1). The objection shall be
made by completing and returning to the court a counter-
affidavit, which shall be verified subject to penalties
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities), in substantially the following form…
* * *
(h) Relocation factors.—In determining whether to
-7-
J-A05009-19
grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the
following factors, giving weighted consideration to those
factors which affect the safety of the child:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and
duration of the child’s relationship with the party
proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating
party, siblings and other significant persons in the
child’s life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child
and the likely impact the relocation will have on the
child’s physical, educational and emotional
development, taking into consideration any special
needs of the child.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship
between the nonrelocating party and the child through
suitable custody arrangements, considering the
logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
(4) The child’s preference, taking into consideration
the age and maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of
conduct of either party to promote or thwart the
relationship of the child and the other party.
(6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general
quality of life for the party seeking the relocation,
including, but not limited to, financial or emotional
benefit or educational opportunity.
(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general
quality of life for the child, including, but not limited
to, financial or emotional benefit or educational
opportunity.
(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for
seeking or opposing the relocation.
(9) The present and past abuse committed by a
party or member of the party’s household and
-8-
J-A05009-19
whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child
or an abused party.
(10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the
child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(a)–(d) (h). Moreover,
[T]he party proposing relocation…bears the burden of
proving relocation will serve the children’s best interests.
See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i). Each party, however, has the
burden of establishing “the integrity of that party’s motives
in either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the
relocation.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5337(i)(2).
S.J.S., supra at 551. In all of these proceedings:
[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we
defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the
opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of
the witnesses.
The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the
trial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount
concern of the trial court is the best interest of the
child. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trial
court’s consideration of the best interest of the child
was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find
any abuse of discretion.
R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa.Super. 2009) (internal
citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cathleen
Bubash, we conclude Father’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, dated October 15, 2018, at 5-11) (finding: court
-9-
J-A05009-19
fully considered custody and relocation statutory factors, which favored
Mother’s relocation request and post-relocation custody schedule entered;
evidence supported decision, based on safety and best interests of Children
and benefits afforded to them through relocation with Mother). The record
supports the court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it.
Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/18/2019
- 10 -
'· '·i. I I •f
Circulated 03/08/2019 02:49 PM
IN THECO.URJOF COMMON PL.EAS QF ALLEGHENY COUNTY( PEN'NSY:LVANJA
FAMl�Y O!VISIO.N
B, D., OPINION
Plqihtiff,
No:: FD-18-007885-008:
v. Sup.Ct. No;: l-292 WDA,20l5·
M.D.. ,
Detendont.
BY:
Honorable CoJhleen Bubash
4AO. Ross Street
SUife 5036
PJttsourgh PA 15219
COPIES fC):
Counsel: :for Pl_c:iihtiff/Appeilant
RoberfRover, Esq.
·Poilock .Begg Komar �.lasser .&. Vertz
43(Granf sr, Suite 501
Pitt�b()tg_h, PA 152l9.
C.o.unsei for Defendont:
JohnJ. Romza, Esq.
Law··offi¢�s of John J. Romza;
3380 sobcock Blvd.
Pittsburgh, PA 1'5237
iN THE COURT C)F COMMON PLEAS OF AL�E;<:;HENY COUNTY,. PENNSYLVANIA:
FAMILY DIVISJ.ON
Plaintiff, N·o.: FD-lB-007885
v, Sup, Covrt- No: 1292 W:DA 2018
M.D.,
Defendont.
.OPINION
Judge Cathleen Bubosh
Father B.P:., [hereinotter "Pother"] hos oppeoled :fr.om my August 8; 2018
Cus.tody Or:der grol'.1ting Mother M .Q.' s :(here1nafter :i:, Mother'°'). request to relocote
to Iornpc; Florida: With the. Portles' three m_inor- childten. {hereinofter "the
Chtdren"], My Order, entered after o one day trial, provided that Moth.er would
exercise phystcol .custodv o.f the Chil.dre.h in Florida; during the· school veer. with
Fother� exercising
. custody in Allegheny
., .
CoiJnty· for the summer break, as we.II os
..
during holidqys. secouse my 'Order was supported by the evidence presented
and is. ln the best interest ofthe Children., it show Id be ·affirmed.
Bqtkground
.
The Porties were rnorried. Jn: Florida: in 2007, ofter which they ·m.oved to
Pittsburgh (TR. p. 21.). fdther's Mo.ther Jives in Pittsburg\\ they separated on or
obout Jonoorv ·20, 2018. The Parties' c�ildr�n were, aged 4, .5, and 9· at· fhe time
-�
of trial) The marric:ige wos a turbulent one with both sides testifying to arguments,
which often resulted ;in: violent altercations. Ultimqtely, on July $; 2018; Mother
filed an ·Emergency Protectton from Abuse (11PFA") p�ti:t]o:n ogoinst Father which
\ .
was resolved by way of a: no-con ta.ct non..:PFA consent Orcie.r on J\JlY }9; 20 rs (JR.
p. 27-,28).. 2
At 'trial, I interviewed the chUdren·. s·oth Parties testified. Father introduced
the testimony of a minister from the· fomily church and Po.te.mal: ·Gtdndmo.fher,
who bas. been primarilY the caretaker for ·th.e Childre.n du.dng- the marriage and
during Pother's custody time ..
Mother is·a registered nurse.who was wor;king port time at the date of trial
and Father is ·employed fUJI time as an ecologist Mother was residing in the
maritqJ home wffh the Children,: Whil.e Fatherwa�.prirn.ori.lY liv.fng:withhis mother in
Penn Hills, .alt.hough he olso rented on oportment -close· py.; Mother testified :fhat
:she- could not be· sure of lather'·s address. (TR. p . .- 25). Father•·s testimony, os Well .os
Pcternol Qrandmotherrs, Was unclear regoroing When he· be{;ian: living wi.th her
and whether he also spent overhig.hh at the qpqrtrnent ct times. TR. p.-l38-14Q)
Ihe ParHes' versions. of their marriage· a.nc:l .sepcrctlon dittered, As will be
discussed further below. Mothet festifi'ed that Father oft$n. eng_aged in heavy
ddnklng; in obuse. and in ne_gllg�nt ·p.are.nt.ing_.. Mother _fl.,irth�.r" testified that Father
did not seek to.exercse custody 'Of 'the. -children after separation. Folher testified
that Mother kept the Children from him,
1
The thr.e.e Children q)J have varying tevels of speclol needs, The oldest boy has' ha_d some
behqviorcil 'issues· bt.it ts -g good student. "The. middle d_qughter :s.uHers from selective mutism, on
,mxiefy. reloted disorder. and the· yo1:mger boy has developmental· speech delays; which may or
rnqy· not be a result of Jrnpoired 'hearing. ·
2
Mother filed for the. PF.A'afteneceiving a text ·frc::>rn :F.otherwhic h .he da1ms,was mtsconsfrued.
Fath�_n:j\d not, however, deny previous cctsol vlolencetestlfled to by Mother. includih�} the
fearing 'Of doors from t!;leir hihg:es::{TR. p .: 40�·43), · .
Mother'.s 'testirnooy was more: c.r.ed.ib.1.e.: than- Fa.ther's ir.t most respects,
·tovnd ·thaf Father hos not demonstrated in.depe'nderit capabtfity. cs a- porer;.t.
Whe.n he· hes custody of the .children;. he depends .on his :t.8-year-...Qid mother to
provide them· wifh core. I olso found Mother·� mo·stly "i:.fhreJuted Iestimony
re.garding some ·of Fat.her'-s actions with the Children ourihg the marriage to be
alarming,
I found that Mother's. move to Florldo :will b�n.efit her 'fihdhciolly and
petson.afly ond tho.t ·the· Children will beneflt from the move as: welJ! J ·fowhd that
the custodyschedule proposed by Mother will serve fo preserve the relotionship
between father and the Children and that, s·hotJ_ld Father actually spend time
wlth the Children when they- are in A:ilegbeny County, he is.Jikely to hovec more
meaning_ful relctlcnshlp with. them than he. has. since the Parties:' seporoflon.
Accordingly, I" entered my August '.$, 2018 ()tder, granting Mothe.r'.s Petition to·
Relocate·.
In ·deciding-this cose and fo�h.ioriing rnvcustodv order, l.carefl.!!ly weighed
the evidence presented and evalu.ated thqt evidence in Hght .of the· sixteen
stctutorv custody factors of :23, Pa.C.S.A. ,§5328 cs well as §533:t-s reiooation
foctors. I found that c.ustody tooters 2, .3:, 4, 9·,: ·10;. ·12, end 14 Iovoreo .Mother,
While the other teeters were mostly eqvally Weighted. Additionally, the sofe.ty of
the Children was entitled to the grea.test weight' in rnvonolysls and I toundthot
Fothet wos not competent to ensure the �afety of the Children without the
csslsronce of his mother, With regard to the; relocotlon toctors, I found that
factors 1 2, 3', ·6, 7,
r- s. and,9 favored 'Mbfher and that the c;·h,ii:oren-'s: relocation.
With Mofher. was in thei(besf interest,
,Q.n September 7,. 20 re. Father timely filed a Notice ofAppeolond Concise.
Statement of Matters Comptcined ot ·on. Appeal. Father'"s assigt\ments of errors,
read as follows:'
4
'-'A., The trial court �rted 1n grantingMother'-s. Petition fo(Relo¢otion_pursuont
to: 23 Pa..C:S ..53$7' py permittihg· Mother to relocate With the Forties three
!.3} children to Florida despite Mo.the.r foi.Hng· to lntreduce ony evidence,
·other than a mere jot:> otter, that the relocotlon was· in the chil.oren:'·s. best
Jr\terest.
'
B. Thetrlof court erredin findirig;thq.t Mother.co.uld not fihct :a·full time nursing
Job in 'the Plt"f{t:>wrgh oreo. as Mother never testifiec;I to the some, never
introduced ooournentofion regoroing .her job search, ovt ·did tes.tify thot:
she .had: been working.! ot flmes, four 14) dovs a w�ek sinc.e: the Parties
separation. ·
C. The 'trial ¢oi,Jt't erec ·in granting. Mother"s.Petition·for Relocotlon despite
Mother failing. to have" a plon if her relocotlonwos grar)ted, cs evidenced
by Mother -t�st1ty"ing to different addresses ot Which sh� wo.vld reside;
ciifferent.schools tnat theehlldrtmwou!d,qttend, fai!ihg'to stqtethe doctors
the 'children WH! see, and fdiling to- provide- :a concrete pl,an for the
c::h,ldren···s core providers.
D,, The trial court erred. in,gr.aiiting Mother's Petition tor R�l�n:otton despite
making,a.sp·e¢ific;; fi1:10Jng that Mo.ther ha..s mode disparag,ingremark.s:oo.out
�¢.ither in. the presence of the Children. ·
f. The trie::,I court �tred: in granting Motrie.fs' Petition for Relocation despite
Mother "failing. to encourage a relotionshlp between Father oho· the
· Chlidren. such .oslnter alia.,.:making .ci Iin.oing that Moth·er did no] provide
oppropricte rnedlcc: core to-one the Port.i�.s· chlloren,
'
F. The 't[ial court erred in findihg thot· the-: cbildren will have. oh increosed
quality of lif.e ·iii Tampa, Florida becouse .Mother has family ih· ·o.riondq,
Which .is one end' a hall to two hour awoy· depending on trofflc a·nc;f with
whom Mother has ct siroined relationship."
Discussion
With· ,any c.hild c.ustody case, [hcluding one in:volvi_n-g relocotlon. the
porornount concern i's the· best interests of th� child., Se.e, Landis. v•.Lanc;tis; :869
A.2d "1003 (Po,Super,2005). This stendord requires q· cose-by-cose assessment of
oH of the. factors thqt may legJ.timat�ly of.f.ect the: "phvsicot. i_ntellect,uaL moral and
spirituol well-being" pf the child. -Id. When: o custody dlspute.lnvolves. o request by
Ci party to relocote. the Superior Court' has explolned. "there :is no- block letter
formula that eosily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custodv ,aisputes are
delicate issues that must be· handled on- .ct ccse-bv-cose bosis." BqJdwin ·v�.
8oldwir1, 7 ro: A.29- 6JO, q 14 (Pa'.Sup:er. 1998); 'C�M�J(. 'i.. K.E�M!I 2012 .PA S�per 76, 4S
A.3d 4-17, 42J (2012).
In the instant cose. neither parent presented as ideal, nor as pot�ntly unfi,t.
Fath'er; however, has demonstrated that to dcte. he has not been a fl,)lly
committed porent to his: c-hiloren, Jeaving fhetr care prfmorily" to Wife while the
Portles. were living together end to his_ 'mother since sepcrofon. More.over(
credlble ·tesfimony wos .introduced thof _Father has a history of severe ·.olcbhol
·apl)se·, suffersfrom unccntrolled ·anger wh.iG:h hos led to vio"lence which he.,is onlY'
now oegihhing to.oddress. dhd has enQJaged ln behoviors which ore.donqerous
to· his chilc;:l�en,
s
_2;3 Pa.,C:S-,A .. 5328 requires that; ln ·".ordering ohY form· of.custcdy, the co.urt
shali oetermloe'the best in.teres,t of the chHd by ,c;:011sidering all relevant· factors,
(jivin�f weighte.d consideration 'to those factors which aitec: the .sdfetv ot fhe
thifd';.. 23 Pa. CS.A. §: :5337 also requires, fhe court to give ''Wei_ghted
considerctlon ·to those factors which affect the .s.afety of the c:;hild" When
determining: whether. lt j_s in the best interest of the chlkfren to: grant· Dr deny c
party's petition for reloconon,
I found, :based oh the..evidence presented thct the Children were safest in
Mother's custodv and w.e..ighted my onolvsls occordingly. TesHmony was
Jnrroduced. ano not refuted, thot f.atheflosf the youn9.est:Chil.d oto park in :2016
When fhe Chilo wos two years old. resulting in the Child <::ros$.[ng :a_ street
unqtt:ended (TR. p. 31-32}:: . that Father erected o:-danger.ous' condttion.ln .2Q:17 PY
purpo�efully ldng the front porch .of; the marital borne, resulting 'in the Parties'
6
doughter lolling ond·striking_.her heod {TR. p. 32-33); and thot he Willfully 1.eft pain.
re.Hevers where ·the.y could be noeessed by· the children .(TR. p, 3.3-35,).
Mother t�stified that Father often drankJo the point of vo·rnJting: or:rd w.o.uld
not clean lrup. '(TRl. p. 46-48'). 'Father. ac;:l_r:n.itted.·to ddnkin.g ·and vomiting end could
not rerneJnber if he .cteoned it up, (TR. p ..2�7-2,3:s') .. :Mother testified to o nl:Jmber·
of incidence.s ot.obuse ot both herself and the children. Father had differen.'t
expl'anation� for their injuries ond denied abusing the Children, but he dld not
credibly· deny the lncidents ihvolving Mother.
Because sofety of the Chilqte.h is entltled to the greatest weight in my
analysis, fhe conslderctlons rcised bY the testimony qi.one: weigh heavily in
Mother's favor. despite faults she hos exhibited) Noneth.el�ss:, l will oddress
Pother's separate csserncns of errors below,
A, Children's Besf lnterest
Father osserts ·that MQfher introduced -ori[y ·a "mere job ofter" to:
dernonsfrote thqt .the move wov!d. be: in the ChildrenJs best lnterest To the
contrary, however; .Mothet olso creqlbly testified, not -,only thot the Job .offer in
:Pfor.idq ·offer.S her full time Work with higher pcv. benefits qnd the possibiiity of
odvoncement. but fhat her efforts to obtoln twl! time employment in .Pittsburgh
were previo1:J$..ly thwarted' by Fqther (TR. p •. 57�,56)., thdt Poternol Gr.andm.oth.er hos
indicated she. is uncble to conflnue to provide conslsfent ch'Hdcare which w01,.J!.d
require Mother·to obtoln paid childCO($ here ·(TR •. p. 59.).,. thotshehas friends and
. :f .
famiiy :in FJorida whom her children know· and W.ho have offered to 'hel'p With·the
Chlldren ·(TR.p.,5, �Q; 2'1�22,. :ef>Y:-68'}, ·andthat Flor\dcf has rrostcte.lncome tax.(TR.
p,:55-56). Snectso testified that she hos, no family suppqrt:system in Pittsburgh (TR,
� I otso found, 'Qased on ttie evi<:IE.}n�·e.,thottne Children w�re·sote,durihg Father's:cu�tooy time.
since seporetlonbecouse th�y were olso with.1hJ� mother; With whom he cloims, to be living.
7
p, 38�3-9,). F.r"om this evidence, l determined the relocotion will :substc;tn.tiolly add ·to
the qua.Jity of Mothets iife end. consequentlv. to thotof the Childr�n�·
B_. Lock of Full Time Work: in Pittsburgh
Mother did not lntrcdocedocumentotion o:f o job search in the: Pittsburgh
orec, She did; however, testify 'that she has been o :registered nurse s'nce 2010
(TR. p .. 20)· ond'·that when shedid :work: fu·n-t.ime os .c:r nurse ln PJtfsourgh, ·she: had
to work weekends and evenlnqs. Shetfurther tesflfled that recent efforts to· obtain
full time work al LJPMC were fruitless «md thot sh.e: hos:no heaith benefits .available
to her. Fofher' s assertion; that Mother works: four .days· a: week does not
dernonsfrote tha.tfull trne wotk· is avalloble- to M.olhe(nor" does.It address how she
I .
will .oftord health care after the ·divorce· ls fin·alizec:t
c. Mot_h�(s: Relocation P.lan
Pofher next cornololns that it WO$ error tot' me. to, grant M.other''s. peflflon
when she did not hove o plcn for after relocoflon, Father asserts: this ls evidenced
by the toct that the propos:ed address ln .Moth$.r' spetitlon differs· from ·the: oddress
she testified to at fdoi. r finrovide �other-with c.ustody time· with the -ehHdren
to ho :avail. {TR. p. 26-'27), She testifietl he .did hot spend time with them when
they :were ostenslblv in his custody, Ihls teslfrnonY. was cortoborored by the
testimony of both F,:c::1:ther and Paternal Grandmot:her, towhose heme th'3,Chiloren
wenHor their custody time With Father. Pafernai Granctmoth.er testified that Father
would .normally not.orrlve home from work. Until ofter 7 pm when the Children were
I
getting,readyfor·bed so he hqq liftle time With_th.ern·.::(TR. p, 142}' .. father. howevet,
4 M9ther i_nqicated she has been overwhelmed by the stress of the· qivorce·, the .octions ;l�aqing
to the Parties':' seporcnor, aoq the ·filing of the PFA ,and realizes she failed to cddress.the Child'�s ·
needs, She nos scheduled on oppolnfment with o specialist in Iornpo torthe yoi..>nQesf Child,
9
testifi.ed repeatedly thqf hisschedule was flexible, tnct he was-done with work by
4:·30 Prfl and Jhaf he rarely worked weekends. :(TR. p 176). H� ;did not. however,
spend. that time, with the ·Chil.dren ond hfs whereabouts ·after work and on
.
weekends' was never exploined. (TR. p, '233). Father .ctic.J not make himself
availaole. for the Chfldren even when he· could. lt Is Father, 'in rriy estimotioh, Who.
failed to :strengthen hls relatiOJl"ship With. the Chlldren by fqilin·g ·to spend
meaningful time with them and .-1e·avin_g iJ to his mother to provide care for them.
F.- .Mof.her's Fomily Jn:f=lotida
. tosrlv. Father claims ltwqs error for me. to find the Child.rent's: lives: Will be
enhanced pyliving· closer to M'ofher\ fo.mHy ln Florida because ·they Jive two hours
away from· her new home and have hod a straine.d relotlonship- with Mo·ther.
Tbe proxi.rnr:tV'
. .
of extended tornilY is but one o'f the factors to be· considered
in :the weighing cif 'both the custody· dnd retoconon teeters. I :tbund it .er.edible
thot Mother ·s family would be of osslsfcnce 'to h.er; cs-svtdenced by· the feet that.
1
with very lit·tle notice, they come to Pittsburgh to help with the Children .during the·
trial. Both Poternol Crandmoth�r ond Father attempted to demonstrcfe thaf
Mother1s parents would nof beo helpto her out I did not find them persuoslve.
Mothercredlbly testified that her Mother offE�red to be with the Children until: such
time· os:Mother soccessfollv found cppropricte.betoteond after school childcare.
Additionally, even if Mother··s parents: are· not consistently ova.iloble for childccre.
their relative proximity tothe .Children, :dlong with Mother's ether relotives:'ih the.
generoi crec. w.i!I be a benefit to the ChHoren wno deserve' to have a. relati.on.shiP
With all of thefr relotives,
Whi"le I. did consider the proximity· of ·Mothers. parents in my analysis, it was:
far frorr» the most lmportcnt teeter .. More important to mv analysis. was the s.af.ety
10
of the Children, their need to be cared for by a parent. and the benefits afforded
to them by relocating.
Conclusion
Because my August 8, 2018 Custody Order is supported by the evidence
and serves the best interests of the Children, it should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
11