Mother's relocation request Erie to
Bucks County denied.
The
Court rejected mother's argument that, because there was no existing court
order, the trial court should have made a custody determination
and then engaged in the relocation analysis, rather than, as here, combining
the considerations and rendering an order that awarded primary custody
contingent on Mother’s ultimate decision on where she would reside.
The Court disagreed with Mother’s claim that the trial court elevated
relocation over custody. It specifically stated that it placed no greater
emphasis on the relocation factors simply because they were analyzed first. “The
Court considers the § 5337(h) factors together with the broader best interests
of the children in mind in assessing which party shall be ordered primary
physical custodial and whether Mother’s request for relocation will be
permitted.” Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to compartmentalize the
issues.
The trial court engaged in the proper analysis using both relocation
and custody factors, with the best interest standard as the guide. The court
may have concentrated on relocation factors, but this was because it recognized
that the custody arrangement was in dispute only in the event Mother chose to
relocate. The parties recognized this as well.
Burden of proof - Finally, as the party proposing relocation, Mother
bears the burden of proving relocation will serve the children’s best
interests. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i). Each party, however, has the burden of
establishing “the integrity of that party’s motives in either seeking the
relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5337(i)(2). The
court did not err in placing the burden on Mother to show that relocation was
in the children’s best interests.
Benefits to children - The benefits to the children of Mother's
proposed move are not exclusive to that area and do not outweigh the
detrimental effect on Father’s time and relationship with the children.
Further, Mother did not meet her burden of establishing the integrity of her
reasons for leaving the current home area. As far as Father’s motives for
opposing relocation, the parties do not dispute that he sought only to preserve
his relationship with the children. He also sought to preserve the children’s
relationship with his and Mother’s extended families. The record bears this out
Mother as primary caretaker – Mother viewed her primary caregiver role in a vacuum. As Mother acknowledged, she has had received considerable help from Father and from her stepmother, and readily conceded at trial that Father was a fit and caring parent, and capable of being primary custodian. Mother admitted that the children had a strong bond with Father and their families in Erie. Further, it is clear that Father has been a consistent and stable parental figure in the girls’ lives. Substantial testimony showed it was possible for them to remain in the Erie area and spare the children emotional turmoil, and, if this were the case, Mother would remain primary custodian..
