Pennsylvania Court Weighs in on Child Custody Case

Few issues that are resolved in divorce are more emotional than custody concerns. Parents love their children and want to spend time with them. In some cases, this pits them against one another in court. Such was the case with M.J.M. v. M.L.G. In this article, the Philadelphia child custody lawyers at the Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane will discuss the case and why it’s important to Pennsylvania family law.

Background of the case

This case arose from a highly contested custody dispute between a mother (M.J.M.) and a father (M.L.G.) over their minor child. In this case, the trial court had granted the father primary physical custody, giving both parties shared legal custody. Legal custody means that both parents have the right to make key decisions on behalf of the child. The mother, however, appealed the decision, arguing that the court improperly weighed certain factors and had failed to consider her role as the child’s primary caretaker.

The appeal gave rise to two central questions:

• What framework governs custody determinations under Pennsylvania’s Child Custody Act (23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321–5340)?
• Does the historical “primary caretaker doctrine” still apply, or has it been replaced by the statutory custody factors?

The appeal

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court highlighted that the Child Custody Act mandates that trial courts evaluate custody disputes using the best interests of the child standard. This means that:

• 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) sets forth 16 custody factors (plus a relocation section where relevant) that have to be considered. That statute requires courts to not only consider each factor but also to articulate their reasoning for coming to that decision.
• 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(d) further requires courts to “delineate the reasons for its decision on the record or in a written opinion.”

As far as the primary caretaker issue was concerned, the Superior Court clarified that the doctrine, which used to be popular for making custody decisions, was no longer an independent rule. Instead, its underlying concerns (the stability of caregiving, parental involvement in the child’s daily needs, etc.) were folded into the statutory framework. Courts must weigh those concerns as part of the § 5328(a) analysis, but are not bound to give them controlling weight.

In this case, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order, deciding against the mother. It found that the trial court had adequately addressed the statutory factors, explained its reasoning, and properly applied the best interests of the child standard. The appellate court further rejected the mother’s claim that the trial court was required to favor her as the primary caretaker.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Child Custody Lawyer Today 

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represent the interests of Philadelphia residents who are in custody disputes with their co-parent. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin advocating on your behalf right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2011/995-mda-2011.html