Child Relocation and Custody in Pennsylvania

Child relocation disputes are arguably the most complex issues in family law. Where the custodial party wishes to relocate their child a considerable distance, often out of state, the court is faced with the difficult task of balancing the parent’s rights with the impact it could have on the child’s relationship with the other parent. Pennsylvania is guided by the best interests of the child standard when considering relocation cases. In this article, we’ll discuss a real Pennsylvania family law case in which child relocation was a central issue.

Background of the case 

In the aforementioned case, the parties were married for close to two decades and had three minor children together. In early 2005, the mother left the family home in York County, Pennsylvania, and went to Utah with the children without the father’s knowledge or consent. The father did not have a custody order at the time of the move, and shortly thereafter, he initiated a divorce action and a request for primary physical custody of the children. The mother then initiated a petition for primary custody and also sought permission to move with the children to Utah. The children were ordered to remain in Pennsylvania by the custody order. Both parties possessed legal and physical custody of the children.

During the hearing for custody and relocation, both parties were heard as they provided testimony on their ability to care for the children, financial situation, and living environment. In spite of evidence showing that the mother was a primary caregiver, the trial court denied the mother’s request for relocation and granted primary physical custody to the father on the grounds that it was best for the children to stay in Pennsylvania. The court was concerned that relocating could cause instability. The court was skeptical regarding the permanency of the mother’s stay in Utah.

The appeal 

The mother appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, asserting that the trial court erred in denying her relocation request and awarding the father primary custody of the children. The main concern on appeal was whether the trial court correctly applied the “best interests of the children” standard and whether it gave enough consideration to the positive environment the mother was able to provide for her children.

In review of the case, the Superior Court found that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellate court emphasized that in relocation cases, particularly when it involves the element of custody, there needs to be competent evidence regarding the welfare of the children, the custodial environment offered in each case, and the role played by both parents. The Superior Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in giving greater weight to the relocation instead of an impartial investigation regarding the custodial environment offered by each parent. The inference made by the trial court regarding the mother’s residence in Utah being only temporary in nature was not supported by sufficient evidence. The appellate court found that there was an absence of a comprehensive investigation regarding the parents’ financial stability, including support from the mother’s parents in Utah.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Child Relocation Lawyer Today

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represents the interests of Philadelphia parents who want to relocate with a minor child. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2006/s62032-05.html