A Pennsylvania Contested Custody Case

Child custody cases are some of the most emotionally trying cases in Pennsylvania family law. In Pennsylvania, custody decisions turn upon a consideration of the child’s best interests, which in turn involve a weighing of a series of statutory criteria. In this article, we’ll discuss a real Pennsylvania contested custody case and discuss how the courts review these scenarios.

Background of the case 

In the aforementioned case, the parties were involved in a dispute over a modification of child custody involving a child who was born in 2007. The original arrangement was a shared legal and physical custody of the child arrangement, which was ordered up until 2011. The father was to have physical custody during the first part of the week and alternating weekends. However, the mother filed a petition to modify the child custody arrangement to award her primary physical custody. She argued the father’s decision to relocate and the increase in commuting time the child would have to endure if the current arrangement stayed in place. She argued this would be detrimental to the child. A child custody trial was held in April 2014, and the mother was granted primary physical custody of the child during the school year, and the father was granted limited child custody during the week and on alternating weekends, as well as shared child custody over the summer months; both parties were granted shared legal custody. 

The appeal

In this case, the father appealed, arguing the order of the trial court was unreasonable and did not reflect the best interests of the child. Pennsylvania courts will conduct an abuse of discretion analysis when evaluating a custody decision, which means the findings of the court will be given great weight, but the decision will be reversed if the findings are unreasonable.

The father argued the order of the court did not consider sufficient evidence when it relied heavily on the reduction of the commute for the child, and the court did not adequately consider the impact of the reduction on his time with the child during the school year would have on the relationship between the father and his child.

The Superior Court agreed with the father’s position in this case. The appellate court found that while the lower court had looked at several factors in determining custody, including the relative locations of the parents’ homes and their stability, it had failed to properly weigh the potential damage to the child from breaking their established pattern in shared custody.

The appellate court in this case also found that while the lower court had expressed some concern about the amount of time it would take for the parents and their daughter to commute from one home to the other (around 40 minutes) the parents’ relative locations and the active role in their daughter’s life played by the father warranted greater weight in the decision-making process.

The appellate court found that reduced contact with a capable parent had the potential to damage the child’s status quo. The trial court, in this case, did not properly evaluate whether it would hurt the child. The appeals court thus overturned the verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court for review.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Child Custody Lawyer Today 

The Law Office of Lauren H. Kane represents the interests of Philadelphia residents during child custody or relocation hearings. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your case right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2015/2170-eda-2014-0.html