D.K.D. v. A.L.C. – Superior
Court – June 15, 2016
The Court reversed the grant of
mother’s relocation motion (Florida), where she had already moved with the
child, and ordered the return of the child to Pennsylvania, in custody of
father.
The court held that “the record
will not sustain the trial court’s consideration of the § 5337(h) relocation
factors. Specifically, the trial court erred in (1) finding that Mother would
not further thwart Father’s relationship with L.D. following relocation; (2)
ignoring that Mother’s principal motivation was to return to her native state
of Florida and her concern for L.D.’s developmental condition was secondary;
(3) accepting as adequate, Mother’s chiefly symbolic search for employment
opportunities in Pennsylvania; and (4) concluding that Mother’s financial
condition was so strained that relocation to Florida was unavoidable. “
These errors implicated five of
the ten factors listed in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) and
warranted reversing the trial court’s decision to grant Mother’s petition for
relocation. As the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as
shown by the evidence of record, the court could “....not accept the court’s
conclusion that relocation is in L.D.’s best interest.”
The Court reversed the grant of
mother’s relocation motion (Florida), where she had already moved with the
child, and ordered the return of the child to Pennsylvania, in custody of
father.
The court held that “the record
will not sustain the trial court’s consideration of the § 5337(h) relocation
factors. Specifically, the trial court erred in (1) finding that Mother would
not further thwart Father’s relationship with L.D. following relocation; (2)
ignoring that Mother’s principal motivation was to return to her native state
of Florida and her concern for L.D.’s developmental condition was secondary;
(3) accepting as adequate, Mother’s chiefly symbolic search for employment
opportunities in Pennsylvania; and (4) concluding that Mother’s financial
condition was so strained that relocation to Florida was unavoidable. “
These errors implicated five of
the ten factors listed in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) and
warranted reversing the trial court’s decision to grant Mother’s petition for
relocation. As the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as
shown by the evidence of record, the court could “....not accept the court’s
conclusion that relocation is in L.D.’s best interest.”
