A.V. v. S.T.
2014 WL 895217, 87 A.3d 818, 2014 Pa. Super. 48 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a petition for relocation will also substantially modify the type of physical custody award (e.g., from 'shared' to 'partial'), the trial court must analyze both the statutory relocation factors and the statutory custody factors that govern the best interests of the child. Furthermore, a trial court must articulate its own independent judicial analysis and may not satisfy this requirement by wholesale adopting one party's brief as its opinion.
Facts:
- S.T. ('Father') and A.V. ('Mother') are the unmarried parents of three minor children.
- While residing at the same address in Ashley, Pennsylvania, the parties entered into an agreed-upon custody order for shared legal and shared physical custody on an alternating weekly basis.
- Following the entry of this order, Mother moved with the children to Brick, New Jersey during her scheduled custody weeks.
- Mother filed a petition to permanently relocate with the children from Ashley, Pennsylvania to New Jersey.
Procedural Posture:
- Mother, A.V., filed a complaint for custody against Father, S.T., in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The parties entered into an agreed-upon order for shared legal and shared physical custody.
- Mother then filed a petition in the same court to relocate with the children to New Jersey.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted Mother's relocation petition, issuing an order that also modified the custody arrangement to give Father partial physical custody.
- Father, S.T., timely filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err when it grants a petition for relocation that also modifies the type of physical custody from 'shared' to 'partial' without conducting a separate analysis of the general custody factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a), and instead only analyzes the relocation factors under § 5337(h) while adopting one party's brief as its opinion?
Opinions:
Majority - Gantman, P.J.
Yes. A trial court errs when it grants a relocation petition that also functions as a custody modification without analyzing both sets of statutory factors and by failing to provide an independent judicial analysis. The relocation order substantially reduced Father's custody from shared physical custody (alternating weeks) to partial physical custody (alternating weekends), which constituted a modification of the type of custody award. When making a new custody award, a court is statutorily required under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) to analyze the sixteen factors concerning the best interests of the child. The trial court failed to do this, considering only the ten relocation factors under § 5337(h). Additionally, the trial court committed error by engaging in the 'wholesale adoption' of Mother’s post-trial brief as its opinion. This practice is prohibited because it deprives the appellate court of the trial court’s independent judicial analysis, which is necessary for meaningful appellate review, and in this case led to the adoption of factual findings unsupported by the record.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural requirements for hybrid relocation and custody modification cases in Pennsylvania. It establishes that if a relocation petition will substantively alter the fundamental custody arrangement, trial courts must perform a dual analysis, considering both the specific relocation factors and the general 'best interest' custody factors. This prevents a party from using a relocation petition as a backdoor to modify custody without the comprehensive review required for such a change. The ruling also strongly reinforces the judiciary's prohibition against trial courts adopting a party's brief as their own opinion, emphasizing the necessity of independent judicial reasoning to ensure transparent decision-making and facilitate proper appellate review.
