D.K.D. v. A. L.C.
2016 Pa. Super. 123, 141 A.3d 566 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion when it grants a custodial parent's petition for relocation if its findings regarding the statutory relocation factors are unreasonable and not supported by the evidence of record, particularly when the record shows the parent's primary motivation is personal preference rather than the child's best interest.
Facts:
- D.K.D. ('Father') and A.L.C. ('Mother') divorced after living in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area.
- They have one son, L.D., who was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and requires stability, routine, and intensive therapy.
- Following their separation, Mother remained in the marital home with L.D. as the primary physical custodian, while Father lived twelve miles away.
- Mother regularly interfered with Father's ability to exercise his custodial rights, often insisting he visit L.D. only at the marital home.
- Mother, who holds a law degree, decided to move to Florida, where she accepted a clerical job with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Mother's mother ('Maternal Grandmother') purchased a $435,000 home for Mother in Treasure Island, Florida.
- Evidence showed Mother's job search was overwhelmingly focused on federal positions in Florida, with minimal sincere effort to find commensurate employment in Pennsylvania.
- Before the court granted her relocation request, Mother listed the marital home for sale, started her new job in Florida, and arranged for the Maternal Grandmother to care for L.D. in Pennsylvania.
Procedural Posture:
- Father filed a petition for divorce, including a count for custody of the child, L.D., in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- The trial court entered a consent order granting shared legal custody, with Mother having primary physical custody.
- On September 25, 2014, Father filed a petition to modify the custody order, seeking more time with L.D.
- Mother responded by filing a notice of proposed relocation to Florida.
- After a two-day trial, on March 20, 2015, the trial court denied Mother's relocation request and granted Father's petition for modification, increasing his custodial time.
- Mother filed a motion for reconsideration and special relief, citing a new job offer in Florida.
- The trial court granted reconsideration and reopened the record for another evidentiary hearing.
- After the third day of trial, the trial court reversed its prior order, granting Mother's request to relocate with L.D. to Florida and denying Father's modification petition.
- Father, as appellant, filed a timely appeal of the trial court's final order 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:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting Mother's petition to relocate with the child to Florida where the record did not support the court's conclusion that the move was in the child's best interest under the statutory factors in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Bowes
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by granting Mother's petition to relocate because its conclusion that relocation was in the child's best interest was unreasonable and unsupported by the record. The trial court reversed its own initial, correct decision by misapprehending key facts and giving improper weight to Mother's 'new' evidence of a job and home in Florida. The record demonstrates that Mother's primary motivation was her personal desire to return to Florida, not the child's welfare. The trial court erred in its analysis of several statutory relocation factors, including underestimating the negative impact on the child's stability and relationship with Father, and overstating the supposed benefits to Mother and child. Evidence showed Mother's job search in Pennsylvania was superficial, her financial situation was not as dire as portrayed, and she had a history of thwarting Father's relationship with their son, a pattern unlikely to improve from 1,000 miles away. Therefore, Mother failed to meet her burden of proving that the relocation would serve the child's best interest.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the high burden of proof on a parent seeking to relocate with a child and reinforces the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the relocating parent's motives. It illustrates that an appellate court will conduct a thorough review of the trial court's application of statutory factors and will reverse a decision that is not reasonably supported by the evidence. The case serves as a warning that a parent's self-created 'new circumstances,' such as accepting a job and buying a home in the desired location after an initial denial, will be viewed critically and may be interpreted as evidence of insincerity rather than as a legitimate change warranting reconsideration. The ruling emphasizes that the 'best interest of the child' standard requires a holistic analysis of the child's entire life, including stability and relationships with both parents, not just the economic or emotional enhancement of the relocating parent's life.
