J-A05009-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

B.D.

Appellant

v.

M.D.

Appellee

:::::::::

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OFPENNSYLVANIA

No. 1292 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Dated August 8, 2018In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No(s): FD18-007885

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 18, 2019

Appellant, B.D. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which granted primary physical

custody of the parties’ three minor children (“Children”), to Appellee, M.D.

(“Mother”), and granted Mother’s petition for relocation. We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

Father and Mother married in Florida in 2007, and later they moved to

Pennsylvania. During their marriage, the parties had three children. Following

a tumultuous relationship involving alcoholism, anger issues, and abuse by

Father toward Mother, the parties separated in January 2018. Since their

separation, Mother has had sole physical custody of Children; and Father has

paid no support since April 2018. The parties are in the process of divorce.

On July 6, 2018, Mother filed a Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) order

J-A05009-19

- 2 -

against Father, based on a threatening text message. A few days later, on

July 10, 2018, Father filed a custody action requesting shared physical

custody. On July 13, 2018, Mother filed an answer and counterclaim for

primary custody and a notice of relocation, as Mother had received a job offer

in Florida. Father filed a counter affidavit regarding the relocation on July 18,

2018. The following day, the parties entered into a consent order to resolve

the pending PFA action against Father. The court also scheduled an expedited

hearing for August 2, 2018. Following the scheduled hearing, the court issued

an order and opinion on August 8, 2018, granting Mother’s relocation request

and establishing the post-relocation custody schedule. The custody

arrangement provided for Mother to exercise physical custody of Children in

Florida during the school year, while Father would exercise custody in

Allegheny County for summer break, as well as during holidays. On

September 7, 2018, Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a

contemporaneous concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Father raises the following issue on appeal:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTINGMOTHER’S PETITION FOR RELOCATION FOR SIX RELATEDREASONS, WHICH FATHER ARGUES AS SUBPARTS IN HISBRIEF ON APPEAL?

(Father’s Brief at 5-6).

In reviewing a child custody order:

J-A05009-19

- 3 -

[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard isabuse of discretion. This Court must accept findings of thetrial court that are supported by competent evidence ofrecord, as our role does not include making independentfactual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues ofcredibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must deferto the trial judge who presided over the proceedings andthus viewed the witnesses first hand. However, we are notbound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences from itsfactual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trialcourt’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by theevidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of thetrial court only if they involve an error of law, or areunreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trialcourt.

S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation

omitted). Additionally,

[O]ur Legislature adopted a new Child Custody Act (“Act”),effective on January 24, 2011. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321–5340. The new Act applies to “disputes relating to childcustody matters” filed after the effective date of the newlaw. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5321. In E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 76(Pa.Super. 2011), we held that the Act applied to anyproceeding, including a petition for relocation, initiated by afiling made after the effective date of the Act.

Id. With respect to a custody order, Section 5328(a) provides:

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the courtshall determine the best interest of the child by consideringall relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to thosefactors which affect the safety of the child, including thefollowing:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permitfrequent and continuing contact between the child andanother party.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party

J-A05009-19

- 4 -

or member of the party’s household, whether there is acontinued risk of harm to the child or an abused partyand which party can better provide adequate physicalsafeguards and supervision of the child.

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(relating to consideration of child abuse and involvementwith protective services).

(3) The parental duties performed by each party onbehalf of the child.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’seducation, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, basedon the child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child againstthe other parent, except in cases of domestic violencewhere reasonable safety measures are necessary toprotect the child from harm.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving,stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with thechild adequate for the child’s emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the dailyphysical, emotional, developmental, educational andspecial needs of the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child orability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and thewillingness and ability of the parties to cooperate withone another. A party’s effort to protect a child fromabuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness

J-A05009-19

- 5 -

or inability to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party ormember of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party ormember of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). In expressing the reasons for its decision, “there is

no required amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is

required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody

decision is based on those considerations.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331,

336 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 710, 68 A.3d 909 (2013). A

court’s explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately addresses the

relevant custody factors, complies with Section 5323(d). Id.

The new Act defines “Relocation” as “[a] change in residence of the child

which significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating party to exercise

custodial rights.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a); C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417,

422-25 (Pa.Super. 2012). Section 5337 sets forth the procedures and factors

governing relocation in relevant part as follows:

§ 5337. Relocation

(a) Applicability.—This section applies to any proposedrelocation.

(b) General rule.—No relocation shall occur unless:

(1) every individual who has custody rights to the childconsents to the proposed relocation; or

J-A05009-19

- 6 -

(2) the court approves the proposed relocation.

(c) Notice.—

(1) The party proposing the relocation shall notify everyother individual who has custody rights to the child.

(2) Notice, sent by certified mail, return receiptrequested, shall be given no later than:

(i) the 60th day before the date of the proposedrelocation; or

(ii) the tenth day after the date that the individualknows of the relocation, if:

(A) the individual did not know and could notreasonably have known of the relocation insufficient time to comply with the 60–day notice;and

(B) it is not reasonably possible to delay the dateof relocation so as to comply with the 60–daynotice.

(3) Except as provided by section 5336 (relating toaccess to records and information), the followinginformation, if available, must be included with the noticeof the proposed relocation:

(i) The address of the intended new residence.

(ii) The mailing address, if not the same as theaddress of the intended new residence.

(iii) Names and ages of the individuals in the newresidence, including individuals who intend to live inthe new residence.

(iv) The home telephone number of the intended newresidence, if available.

(v) The name of the new school district and school.

J-A05009-19

- 7 -

(vi) The date of the proposed relocation.

(vii) The reasons for the proposed relocation.

(viii) A proposal for a revised custody schedule.

(ix) Any other information which the party proposingthe relocation deems appropriate.

(x) A counter-affidavit as provided under subsection(d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposedrelocation and the modification of a custody order.

(xi) A warning to the nonrelocating party that if thenonrelocating party does not file with the court anobjection to the proposed relocation within 30 daysafter receipt of the notice, that party shall beforeclosed from objecting to the relocation.

(4) If any of the information set forth in paragraph (3)is not known when the notice is sent but is later madeknown to the party proposing the relocation, then thatparty shall promptly inform every individual who receivednotice under this subsection.

(d) Objection to proposed relocation.—

(1) A party entitled to receive notice may file with thecourt an objection to the proposed relocation and seek atemporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation.The nonrelocating party shall have the opportunity toindicate whether he objects to relocation or not andwhether he objects to modification of the custody orderor not. If the party objects to either relocation ormodification of the custody order, a hearing shall be heldas provided in subsection (g)(1). The objection shall bemade by completing and returning to the court a counter-affidavit, which shall be verified subject to penaltiesunder 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsificationto authorities), in substantially the following form…

* * *

(h) Relocation factors.—In determining whether to

J-A05009-19

- 8 -

grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider thefollowing factors, giving weighted consideration to thosefactors which affect the safety of the child:

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement andduration of the child’s relationship with the partyproposing to relocate and with the nonrelocatingparty, siblings and other significant persons in thechild’s life.

(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the childand the likely impact the relocation will have on thechild’s physical, educational and emotionaldevelopment, taking into consideration any specialneeds of the child.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationshipbetween the nonrelocating party and the child throughsuitable custody arrangements, considering thelogistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

(4) The child’s preference, taking into considerationthe age and maturity of the child.

(5) Whether there is an established pattern ofconduct of either party to promote or thwart therelationship of the child and the other party.

(6) Whether the relocation will enhance the generalquality of life for the party seeking the relocation,including, but not limited to, financial or emotionalbenefit or educational opportunity.

(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the generalquality of life for the child, including, but not limitedto, financial or emotional benefit or educationalopportunity.

(8) The reasons and motivation of each party forseeking or opposing the relocation.

(9) The present and past abuse committed by aparty or member of the party’s household and

J-A05009-19

- 9 -

whether there is a continued risk of harm to the childor an abused party.

(10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of thechild.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(a)–(d) (h). Moreover,

[T]he party proposing relocation…bears the burden ofproving relocation will serve the children’s best interests.See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i). Each party, however, has theburden of establishing “the integrity of that party’s motivesin either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent therelocation.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5337(i)(2).

S.J.S., supra at 551. In all of these proceedings:

[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, wedefer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had theopportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor ofthe witnesses.

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight thetrial court places on evidence. Rather, the paramountconcern of the trial court is the best interest of thechild. Appellate interference is unwarranted if the trialcourt’s consideration of the best interest of the childwas careful and thorough, and we are unable to findany abuse of discretion.

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa.Super. 2009) (internal

citations omitted).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cathleen

Bubash, we conclude Father’s issue merits no relief. The trial court

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.

(See Trial Court Opinion, dated October 15, 2018, at 5-11) (finding: court

J-A05009-19

- 10 -

fully considered custody and relocation statutory factors, which favored

Mother’s relocation request and post-relocation custody schedule entered;

evidence supported decision, based on safety and best interests of Children

and benefits afforded to them through relocation with Mother). The record

supports the court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it.

Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.Prothonotary

Date: 3/18/2019

Circulated 03/08/2019 02:49 PM'· '·i. I I •f

IN THECO.URJOF COMMON PL.EAS QF ALLEGHENY COUNTY( PEN'NSY:LVANJA FAMl�Y O!VISIO.N

B, D.,

M.D .. ,

v.

Plqihtiff,

Detendont.

OPINION

No:: FD-18-007885-008: Sup.Ct. No;: l-292 WDA,20l5·

BY:

Honorable CoJhleen Bubash 4AO. Ross Street SUife 5036 PJttsourgh PA 15219

COPIES fC):

Counsel: :for Pl_c:iihtiff /Appeilant

RoberfRover, Esq. ·Poilock .Begg Komar �.lasser .&. Vertz 43(Granf sr, Suite 501 Pitt�b()tg_h, PA 152l9.

C.o.unsei for Defendont:

JohnJ. Romza, Esq. Law··offi¢�s of John J. Romza; 3380 sobcock Blvd. Pittsburgh, PA 1'5237

iN THE COURT C)F COMMON PLEAS OF AL�E;<:;HENY COUNTY,. PENNSYLVANIA: FAMILY DIVISJ.ON

M.D.,

v, Plaintiff,

Defendont.

N·o.: FD-lB-007885 Sup, Covrt- No: 1292 W:DA 2018

.OPINION Judge Cathleen Bubosh

-�

Father B.P:., [hereinotter "Pother"] hos oppeoled :fr.om my August 8; 2018

Cus.tody Or:der grol'.1ting Mother M .Q.' s :(here1nafter :i:, Mother'°'). request to relocote

to Iornpc; Florida: With the. Portles' three m_inor- childten. {hereinofter "the

Chtdren"], My Order, entered after o one day trial, provided that Moth.er would exercise phystcol .custodv o.f the Chil.dre.h in Florida; during the· school veer. with

Fother exercising custody in Allegheny CoiJnty· for the summer break, as we.II os � . ., . ..

during holidqys. secouse my 'Order was supported by the evidence presented

and is. ln the best interest ofthe Children., it show Id be ·affirmed.

Bqtkground

The Porties were rnorried Jn: Florida: in 2007, ofter which they ·m.oved to . .

Pittsburgh (TR. p. 21.). fdther's Mo.ther Jives in Pittsburg\\ they separated on or obout Jonoorv ·20, 2018. The Parties' c�ildr�n were, aged 4, .5, and 9· at· fhe time

of trial) The marric:ige wos a turbulent one with both sides testifying to arguments,

which often resulted ;in: violent altercations. Ultimqtely, on July $; 2018; Mother

filed an ·Emergency Protectton from Abuse (11PFA") p�ti:t]o:n ogoinst Father which \ .

was resolved by way of a: no-con ta.ct non..:PFA consent Orcie.r on J\JlY }9; 20 rs (JR. p. 27-,28) .. 2

At 'trial, I interviewed the chUdren·. s·oth Parties testified. Father introduced

the testimony of a minister from the· fomily church and Po.te.mal: ·Gtdndmo.fher,

who bas. been primarilY the caretaker for ·th.e Childre.n du.dng- the marriage and during Pother's custody time ..

Mother is·a registered nurse.who was wor;king port time at the date of trial

and Father is ·employed fUJI time as an ecologist Mother was residing in the maritqJ home wffh the Children,: Whil.e Fatherwa�.prirn.ori.lY liv.fng:withhis mother in Penn Hills, .alt.hough he olso rented on oportment -close· py.; Mother testified :fhat

:she- could not be· sure of lather'·s address. (TR. p . .--25). Father•·s testimony, os Well .os Pcternol Qrandmotherrs, Was unclear regoroing When he· be{;ian: living wi.th her

and whether he also spent overhig.hh at the qpqrtrnent ct times. TR. p.-l38-14Q)

Ihe ParHes' versions. of their marriage· a.nc:l .sepcrctlon dittered, As will be

discussed further below. Mothet festifi'ed that Father oft$n. eng_aged in heavy

ddnklng; in obuse. and in ne_gllg�nt ·p.are.nt.ing_ .. Mother _fl.,irth�.r" testified that Father

did not seek to.exercse custody 'Of 'the. -children after separation. Folher testified

that Mother kept the Children from him,

1 The thr.e.e Children q)J have varying tevels of speclol needs, The oldest boy has' ha_d some behqviorcil 'issues· bt.it ts -g good student. "The. middle d_qughter :s.uHers from selective mutism, on ,mxiefy. reloted disorder. and the· yo1:mger boy has developmental· speech delays; which may or rnqy· not be a result of Jrnpoired 'hearing. ·

2 Mother filed for the. PF.A'afteneceiving a text ·frc::>rn :F.otherwhic h .he da1ms,was mtsconsfrued. Fath�_n:j\d not, however, deny previous cctsol vlolencetestlfled to by Mother. includih�} the fearing 'Of doors from t!;leir hihg:es::{TR. p .: 40�·43), · .

Mother'.s 'testirnooy was more: c.r.ed.ib.1.e.: than- Fa.ther's ir.t most respects, ·tovnd ·thaf Father hos not demonstrated in.depe'nderit capabtfity. cs a- porer;.t. Whe.n he· hes custody of the .children;. he depends .on his :t.8-year-...Qid mother to

provide them· wifh core. I olso found Mother·� mo·stly "i:.fhreJuted Iestimony re.garding some ·of Fat.her'-s actions with the Children ourihg the marriage to be

alarming,

I found that Mother's. move to Florldo :will b�n.efit her 'fihdhciolly and petson.afly ond tho.t ·the· Children will beneflt from the move as: welJ! J ·fowhd that

the custodyschedule proposed by Mother will serve fo preserve the relotionship between father and the Children and that, s·hotJ_ld Father actually spend time

wlth the Children when they- are in A:ilegbeny County, he is.Jikely to hovec more

meaning_ful relctlcnshlp with. them than he. has. since the Parties:' seporoflon. Accordingly, I" entered my August '.$, 2018 ()tder, granting Mothe.r'.s Petition to·

Relocate·.

In ·deciding-this cose and fo�h.ioriing rnvcustodv order, l.carefl.!!ly weighed the evidence presented and evalu.ated thqt evidence in Hght .of the· sixteen

stctutorv custody factors of :23, Pa.C.S.A. ,§5328 cs well as §533:t-s reiooation

foctors. I found that c.ustody tooters 2, .3:, 4, 9·,: ·10;. ·12, end 14 Iovoreo .Mother,

While the other teeters were mostly eqvally Weighted. Additionally, the sofe.ty of

the Children was entitled to the grea.test weight' in rnvonolysls and I toundthot

Fothet wos not competent to ensure the �afety of the Children without the

csslsronce of his mother, With regard to the; relocotlon toctors, I found that factors 1 r- 2, 3', ·6, 7, s. and,9 favored 'Mbfher and that the c;·h,ii:oren-'s: relocation.

With Mofher. was in thei(besf interest,

,Q.n September 7,. 20 re. Father timely filed a Notice ofAppeolond Concise.

Statement of Matters Comptcined ot ·on. Appeal. Father'"s assigt\ments of errors, read as follows:'

4

'-'A., The trial court �rted 1n grantingMother'-s. Petition fo(Relo¢otion_pursuont to: 23 Pa..C:S .. 53$7' py permittihg· Mother to relocate With the Forties three !.3} children to Florida despite Mo.the.r foi.Hng· to lntreduce ony evidence,

·other than a mere jot:> otter, that the relocotlon was· in the chil.oren:'·s. best Jr\terest.

' B. Thetrlof court erredin findirig;thq.t Mother.co.uld not fihct :a·full time nursing Job in 'the Plt"f{t:>wrgh oreo. as Mother never testifiec;I to the some, never introduced ooournentofion regoroing .her job search, ovt ·did tes.tify thot: she .had: been working.! ot flmes, four 14) dovs a w�ek sinc.e: the Parties separation. ·

C. The 'trial ¢oi,Jt't erec ·in granting. Mother"s.Petition·for Relocotlon despite Mother failing. to have" a plon if her relocotlonwos grar)ted, cs evidenced by Mother -t�st1ty"ing to different addresses ot Which sh� wo.vld reside; ciifferent.schools tnat theehlldrtmwou!d,qttend, fai!ihg'to stqtethe doctors the 'children WH! see, and fdiling to- provide- :a concrete pl,an for the c::h,ldren···s core providers. D,, The trial court erred. in,gr.aiiting Mother's Petition tor R�l�n:otton despite making,a.sp·e¢ific;; fi1:10Jng that Mo.ther ha..s mode disparag,ingremark.s:oo.out �¢.ither in. the presence of the Children. ·

f. The trie::,I court �tred: in granting Motrie.fs' Petition for Relocation despite Mother "failing. to encourage a relotionshlp between Father oho· the

· Chlidren. such .oslnter alia.,.:making .ci Iin.oing that Moth·er did no] provide oppropricte rnedlcc: core to-one the Port.i�.s· chlloren,

' F. The 't[ial court erred in findihg thot· the-: cbildren will have. oh increosed quality of lif.e ·iii Tampa, Florida becouse .Mother has family ih· ·o.riondq, Which .is one end' a hall to two hour awoy· depending on trofflc a·nc;f with whom Mother has ct siroined relationship."

Discussion

With· ,any c.hild c.ustody case, [hcluding one in:volvi_n-g relocotlon. the

porornount concern i's the· best interests of th� child., Se.e, Landis. v •. Lanc;tis; :869 A.2d "1003 (Po,Super,2005). This stendord requires q· cose-by-cose assessment of oH of the. factors thqt may legJ.timat�ly of.f.ect the: "phvsicot. i_ntellect,uaL moral and

spirituol well-being" pf the child. -Id. When: o custody dlspute.lnvolves. o request by

Ci party to relocote. the Superior Court' has explolned. "there :is no- block letter

formula that eosily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custodv ,aisputes are

delicate issues that must be· handled on- .ct ccse-bv-cose bosis." BqJdwin ·v�. 8oldwir1, 7 ro: A.29- 6JO, q 14 (Pa'.Sup:er. 1998); 'C�M�J(. 'i .. K.E�M!I 2012 .PA S�per 76, 4S A.3d 4-17, 42J (2012).

In the instant cose. neither parent presented as ideal, nor as pot�ntly unfi,t.

Fath'er; however, has demonstrated that to dcte. he has not been a fl,)lly

committed porent to his: c-hiloren, Jeaving fhetr care prfmorily" to Wife while the

Portles. were living together end to his_ 'mother since sepcrofon. More.over( credlble ·tesfimony wos .introduced thof _Father has a history of severe ·.olcbhol

·apl)se·, suffersfrom unccntrolled ·anger wh.iG:h hos led to vio"lence which he.,is onlY'

now oegihhing to.oddress. dhd has enQJaged ln behoviors which ore.donqerous to· his chilc;:l�en,

_2;3 Pa.,C:S-,A .. s 5328 requires that; ln ·".ordering ohY form· of.custcdy, the co.urt

shali oetermloe'the best in.teres,t of the chHd by ,c;:011sidering all relevant· factors,

(jivin�f weighte.d consideration 'to those factors which aitec: the .sdfetv ot fhe

thifd';.. 23 Pa. CS.A. §: :5337 also requires, fhe court to give ''Wei_ghted considerctlon ·to those factors which affect the .s.afety of the c:;hild" When

determining: whether. lt j_s in the best interest of the chlkfren to: grant· Dr deny c

party's petition for reloconon,

I found, :based oh the .. evidence presented thct the Children were safest in

Mother's custodv and w.e..ighted my onolvsls occordingly. TesHmony was

Jnrroduced. ano not refuted, thot f.atheflosf the youn9.est:Chil.d oto park in :2016

When f he Chilo wos two years old. resulting in the Child <::ros$.[ng :a_ street

unqtt:ended (TR p. 31-32}:: that Father erected o:-danger.ous' condttion.ln .2Q:17 PY . . purpo�efully ldng the front porch .of; the marital borne, resulting 'in the Parties'

6

doughter lolling ond·striking_.her heod {TR. p. 32-33); and thot he Willfully 1.eft pain.

re.Hevers where ·the.y could be noeessed by· the children .(TR. p, 3.3-35,).

Mother t�stified that Father often drankJo the point of vo·rnJting: or:rd w.o.uld not clean lrup. '(TRl. p. 46-48'). 'Father. ac;:l_r:n.itted.·to ddnkin.g ·and vomiting end could not rerneJnber if he .. cteoned it up, (TR. p .. 2�7-2,3:s') .. :Mother testified to o nl:Jmber· of incidence.s ot.obuse ot both herself and the children. Father had differen.'t

expl'anation� for their injuries ond denied abusing the Children, but he dld not

credibly· deny the lncidents ihvolving Mother.

Because sofety of the Chilqte.h is entltled to the greatest weight in my

analysis, fhe conslderctlons rcised bY the testimony qi.one: weigh heavily in Mother's favor. despite faults she hos exhibited) Noneth.el�ss:, l will oddress Pother's separate csserncns of errors below,

A, Children's Besf lnterest

Father osserts ·that MQfher introduced -ori[y ·a "mere job ofter" to: dernonsfrote thqt .the move wov!d. be: in the ChildrenJs best lnterest To the contrary, however; .Mothet olso creqlbly testified, not -, only thot the Job .offer in

:Pfor.idq ·offer.S her full time Work with higher pcv. benefits qnd the possibiiity of odvoncement. but fhat her efforts to obtoln twl! time employment in .Pittsburgh

were previo1:J$..ly thwarted' by Fqther (TR. p •. 57�,56)., thdt Poternol Gr.andm.oth.er hos

indicated she. is uncble to conflnue to provide conslsfent ch'Hdcare which w01,.J!.d

require Mother·to obtoln paid childCO($ here ·(TR •. p. 59.).,. thotshehas friends and . :f .

famiiy :in FJorida whom her children know· and W.ho have offered to 'hel'p With·the Chlldren ·(TR.p.,5, �Q; 2'1�22,. :ef>Y:-68'}, ·andthat Flor\dcf has rrostcte.lncome tax.(TR.

p,:55-56). Snectso testified that she hos, no family suppqrt:system in Pittsburgh (TR,

� I otso found, 'Qased on ttie evi<:IE.}n�·e.,thottne Children w�re·sote,durihg Father's:cu�tooy time. since seporetlonbecouse th�y were olso with.1hJ� mother; With whom he cloims, to be living.

7

p, 38�3-9,). F.r"om this evidence, l determined the relocotion will :substc;tn.tiolly add ·to

the qua.Jity of Mothets iife end. consequentlv. to thotof the Childr�n�·

B_. Lock of Full Time Work: in Pittsburgh

Mother did not lntrcdocedocumentotion o:f o job search in the: Pittsburgh

orec, She did; however, testify 'that she has been o :registered nurse s'nce 2010

(TR. p .. 20)· ond'·that when shedid :work: fu·n-t.ime os .c:r nurse ln PJtfsourgh, ·she: had

to work weekends and evenlnqs. Shetfurther tesflfled that recent efforts to· obtain

full time work al LJPMC were fruitless «md thot sh.e: hos:no heaith benefits .available

to her. Fofher' s assertion; that Mother works: four .days· a: week does not dernonsfrote tha.tfull trne wotk· is avalloble- to M.olhe(nor" does.It address how she

I .

will .oftord health care after the ·divorce· ls fin·alizec:t

c. Mot_h�(s: Relocation P.lan

Pofher next cornololns that it WO$ error tot' me. to, grant M.other''s. peflflon

when she did not hove o plcn for after relocoflon, Father asserts: this ls evidenced

by the toct that the propos:ed address ln .Moth$.r' spetitlon differs· from ·the: oddress she testified to at fdoi. r fin<i this argument to be ,q_i$.ihgenuous on Father's. part. Mother crediblv testified that after·filitig herrelocction petition. she found .o more

suitoble apartment tor me fomllv. Mother ·only recently received her job ·offer in

Florldo. She testiffed thot- she had not $igned d leose prior to tr[a.J because she

was awaiting; this -court's permlsslon to relocote be.fore committing to a 12�.rno.nth leose. (TR. p, ·80}. i fo.und Mothe(s testimony both ·Cr:edi.ble .ond recsonoble. I did

. '

not find thot she did no+ have a ptai::1,, bh_ly that she had no.t-slgned a .lease .as she·

owcited my decision.

8

D. Mofher;s Dlsparaging Remarks;

Poternol Grandmother credibly testified that Mother mode dispar..oging

rernorks about Father in front ct fhe Children. As in any case, this, is: untortonote,

and ft is a procflce which 1 have admonished Mother t.0 .stop, When we\Qhfng: the

feelers.however. this bod'. behavior on Motheri s part was outweighed by Pother' s

porentol shortcomings cs well cs bY the benefit I found would come. to fhe

Children by reiocating.

E. Encouraging a Relation·ship with Father

Al E., Fother cornoloins that Mother has demonstrated a failure to

encourage o relation.ship With.Father due to herfailure'fo obtoin medical care for

one Qrfhe Children. Thls ls o.. folse :eqtJjvdlency, as the two aliegatiom are whollv unrelated, Mother,did fail to address: the.yo�mge$t Child's li.kely hearing problem,

as did Father Until just' before tdal. This follore, however. does not-go 'to Mother's

iikelihood ol·enc.ouraging_ o relotionshlp wlth Father, .only to 'her competency as

opcrent.s

With regard to the Children's relationship with. Fother. Mother testified. quite

credibly; that··sh� ottempted to :t>rovide �other-with c.ustody time· with the -ehHdren

to ho :avail. {TR. p. 26-'27), She testifietl he .did hot spend time with them when

they :were ostenslblv in his custody, Ihls teslfrnonY. was cortoborored by the

testimony of both F,:c::1:ther and Paternal Grandmot:her, towhose heme th'3,Chiloren

wenHor their custody time With Father. Pafernai Granctmoth.er testified that Father

would .normally not.orrlve home from work. Until ofter 7 pm when the Children were I

getting,readyfor·bed so he hqq liftle time With_th.ern·.::(TR. p, 142}' .. father. howevet,

4 M9ther i_nqicated she has been overwhelmed by the stress of the· qivorce·, the .octions ;l�aqing to the Parties':' seporcnor, aoq the ·filing of the PFA ,and realizes she failed to cddress.the Child'�s · needs, She nos scheduled on oppolnfment with o specialist in Iornpo torthe yoi..>nQesf Child,

9

testifi.ed repeatedly thqf hisschedule was flexible, tnct he was-done with work by 4:·30 Prfl and Jhaf he rarely worked weekends. :(TR. p 176). H� ;did not. however,

spend that time, with the ·Chil.dren ond hfs whereabouts ·after work and on . .

weekends' was never exploined. (TR. p, '233). Father .ctic.J not make himself

availaole. for the Chfldren even when he· could. lt Is Father, 'in rriy estimotioh, Who. failed to :strengthen hls relatiOJl"ship With. the Chlldren by fqilin·g ·to spend

meaningful time with them and .-1e·avin_g iJ to his mother to provide care for them.

F.- .Mof.her's Fomily Jn:f=lotida

. tosrlv. Father claims ltwqs error for me. to find the Child.rent's: lives: Will be

enhanced pyliving· closer to M'ofher\ fo.mHy ln Florida because ·they Jive two hours

away from· her new home and have hod a straine.d relotlonship- with Mo·ther.

Tbe proxi.rnr:tV' of extended tornilY is but one o'f the factors to be· considered . .

in :the weighing cif 'both the custody· dnd retoconon teeters. I :tbund it .er.edible

thot Mother1·s family would be of osslsfcnce 'to h.er; cs-svtdenced by· the feet that.

with very lit·tle notice, they come to Pittsburgh to help with the Children .during the·

trial. Both Poternol Crandmoth�r ond Father attempted to demonstrcfe thaf

Mother1s parents would nof beo helpto her out I did not find them persuoslve. Mothercredlbly testified that her Mother offE�red to be with the Children until: such time· os:Mother soccessfollv found cppropricte.betoteond after school childcare.

Additionally, even if Mother··s parents: are· not consistently ova.iloble for childccre.

their relative proximity tothe .Children, :dlong with Mother's ether relotives:'ih the.

generoi crec. w.i!I be a benefit to the ChHoren wno deserve' to have a. relati.on.shiP

With all of thefr relotives,

Whi"le I. did consider the proximity· of ·Mothers. parents in my analysis, it was: far frorr» the most lmportcnt teeter .. More important to mv analysis. was the s.af.ety

10

of the Children, their need to be cared for by a parent. and the benefits afforded

to them by relocating.

Conclusion

Because my August 8, 2018 Custody Order is supported by the evidence

and serves the best interests of the Children, it should be affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

11