J-S34014-20 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

M.L. 

v.

S.G. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 629 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered March 5, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County 

Civil Division at No(s): 10899 of 2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 15, 2020

S.G. (“Mother”) appeals from the March 5, 2020 order, which denied her 

request to relocate with the parties’ minor child (“Child”), born in January of 

2013, from Luzerne County to Lexington, Massachusetts. After careful review, 

we affirm.

Mother resides in the Pittston, Pennsylvania area. Father lives in Exeter, 

Pennsylvania. Mother is of Indian descent and Father is Caucasian. Child 

presently attends elementary school in the Pittston Area School District.

The parties met while both working at Schott Optical in Duryea, 

Pennsylvania. Mother and Father are the natural parents of Child, and were 
J-S34014-20

- 2 -

unmarried at the time of his birth. The relationship between the parties 

remains unattached and contentious.1

The present custody order, in effect since July of 2016, provides a 

comprehensive custody arrangement: (1) Mother has primary physical 

custody of Child; (2) Father has partial custody that includes alternating 

weekends, every Wednesday from 2:00 p.m. until Thursday morning at the 

start of Child’s daycare or schooling, and the option of every Friday when Child 

would otherwise be in daycare; (3) Father possesses the right of first refusal 

of physical custody of Child when Mother is traveling for work or her schooling; 

and (4) the parties share legal custody. See Order, 7/11/2016, at 1-2. 

In April of 2018, based on cross-petitions filed by the parties, the court 

ordered Mother, Father, and Child to attend family counseling and appointed 

a guardian ad litem, Sherwood P. Grabiec, Esquire (“GAL”) to represent Child’s 

best interests.

On July 2, 2018, Mother served Father with a notice of relocation with 

Child. Father filed a counter-affidavit regarding relocation, objecting to the 

relocation and modification of the custody order. Subsequently, on August 2, 

2018, Mother filed a petition requesting a relocation proceeding.

Mother sought relocation after she had attended Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology (“MIT”) from 2016 to 2018, and graduated with a postgraduate 

 

1 See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 2-7 (full history of protracted litigation 

regarding the custody dispute).
J-S34014-20

- 3 -

Master of Business Administration (“MBA”). Upon graduation, she was offered 

employment by a company, AXA Group, in Boston, Massachusetts.

The court conducted a custody/relocation trial on June 27, 2019, August 

27, 2019, October 23, 2019, November 15, 2019, and December 23, 2019. 

The trial court provided the following synopsis of the trial testimony:

Samantha Ashby testified that she is [Child]’s daycare 

owner (The Learning Center) and has known him for a lengthy 

period of time. She indicated that “[Child]’s very bright He’s a 

smart kid, very, very funny, constantly goofing around. He’s just 

all around - just a really, really cool kid. . . . he’s just a really 

bright, energetic, pretty well-behaved kid.” She further stated in 

response to a question if [Child] is doing great in her daycare 

program, she replied, “He does. He thrives.”

The Guardian ad litem, Sherwood P. Grabiec, Esquire, 

testified in both parties’ case in chief. ...

Regarding his recommendation (GAL Report filed 

5/10/2019), he stated “. . . I would have to give a certain amount 

of greater weight to the opportunities that may be available to 

[Child] in the Boston Area.” He further testified, “[a]nd I want to 

stress that I’m not a parenting coordinator. I’m not a custody 

evaluator. I don’t have the expertise in that field. . . But again, I 

guess at the end of the day, I thought both parents were capable, 

caring. But if you have to point the finger at one or more factors,

the opportunities probably in Boston are greater.” Regarding the 

minor child, he testified “. . . [Child] is seemingly a pleasant, 

happy boy that is functioning under the circumstances that are -

that he’s confronting. Namely, that parents are trying to provide 

for him, care for him. Seemingly, they’re trying to function under 

a custody schedule that provides meaningful interaction on behalf 

of [Father]. [He] by all accounts has been a very involved father, 

and that’s very comforting. [Mother], again, an attentive 

[m]other. At the end of the day, this is a very difficult situation 

with regard to what I perceive as [Mother]’s reasonable desire to 

enjoy the fruits of her academic success, which I think will 

certainly in many ways benefit [Child]. I’ve heard a lot of 

information with regard to the experiences that [Child] has with 

his extended family and that is great, and I would hope those 
J-S34014-20

- 4 -

would continue. The circumstances of [Mother]’s situation are that 

she doesn’t have as an extensive family network in the area. I 

would hope, and I also am mindful of the fact that [Child] had 

some in his six years, almost seven years, he’s had a lot of nice 

experiences with church and sports and a really, really strong 

relationship I would hope with his father. I don’t doubt that. I 

would hope that [Child] would be able to have a lot of meaningful 

continuing experiences with his mother. And I don’t doubt that, 

you know, she will pursue, you know, those opportunities.” 

He further testified, “[Child]’s had the ability to enjoy a lot 

of experiences with his father. I would imagine that would 

continue. Maybe modifications would have to be made. He is by 

all accounts in my estimation getting by really well with - under 

the current situation.”

Regarding the relationship between Mother and Father, he 

testified “. . . [Child] doesn’t perceive that his parents talk to one 

another that much. They may communicate in other ways. But 

they don’t really talk to one another. That’s the sense I have just 

from going through the file, too. This has always been seemingly 

this type of - you know, historically, this is the case. There’s 

ongoing tension.”

Father presented expert witness, Dr. William V. Fabricius, 

an expert recognized in the field of developmental psychology and 

relocation custody matters. He stated his studies involve the 

effects of relocation associated with children’s outcomes. He 

stated in regards to relocation factors, one, two and six, that his 

“recommendation would be not to allow [relocation] because of 

those three factors. Now, I’m not talking about the other factors, 

but my expert opinion based on data I have relevant to those 

factors is consistently and strongly against allowing the relocation, 

for the child’s best interest.” Regarding the conflict and hostility 

between the parties in this matter, he stated, “[in] the hundreds 

of cases we’ve studied, the hostility and conflict did not go down 

after relocation, it remained high. The conflict went down in 

families that did not relocate. There is no data that I’m aware of 

to indicate the opposite. . . . The conflict was higher among the 

families that relocated years later than among the families that, 

in fact, didn’t. And among the families that don’t relocate, typically 

you find conflict reducing in the several years after the divorce.” 

Dr. Fabricius recommended equal involvement by Mother and 

Father in the child’s life.
J-S34014-20

- 5 -

As an additional expert witness, Father presented, Dr. Toni 

J. Evans-Barton, CEO of The Fatherless Generation Foundation. 

She testified regarding fatherless children and the possible 

negative effects on same. She stated her “professional experience 

is reunification and dealing with fatherlessness” and further 

explained “I am a licensed and ordained minister, and I also have 

a certification in divorce and family-reunification mediation, and 

then I also am a cognitive behavioral–life coach and practitioner.”

She opined that [Child] fits into the category as a fatherless 

child, because “[Father and Child] don’t live together.” In regards 

to the relocation request, she stated, “I don’t believe it’s a good 

idea at all, I do not believe it should be approved, simply because 

six hours away has proven, not through my research but even by 

the expert before me, that six hours away is just too much time. 

And then looking at the six hours is not only six hours away, but 

it’s a twelve-hour trek, one way and then back. And that becomes 

stressful on a child to have to spend most of his time in the car 

concerning parenting time and visitation with that particular 

parent, whether it’s mother or father. I’ve had children testify and 

say, I didn’t want to drive all the way to Ohio to spend time with 

my father for a weekend and then have to drive back, only once 

a month. I would have rather stayed at home. Which then 

becomes an erosion on the relationship with the father.” She 

further stated, “. . . The child needs as much of a normal life as 

possible. And when two parents live as close as possible, without 

dealing with all the conflict that we’re talking about here today, 

they don’t have to get into conflict living that close together, I 

don’t want them to live around the corner from each other, but 

what I’m asking is to live as close as possible so that [Child] can 

stay in the same school district when he’s with his parents, he can 

have the same friends, he can have the same activities, and he 

doesn’t miss a beat whether it comes to visiting the other parent 

That’s a part of stability.”

Mother presented expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Lewis, an 

expert in the field of child custody involving relocation. He testified 

he was involved with the parties since 2013, when ordered by the 

Honorable Muroski to perform a custody evaluation of the parties. 

He stated his 2014 report focused on “[a]ttachment theory and . 

. . miscegenation” which he explained the latter was an infant born 

of “two parents of different cultural backgrounds, races or ethnic 

backgrounds. In this case it’s Anglo American, white, as we say 
J-S34014-20

- 6 -

and Indian, Indian American.” He stated “. . . with regard to 

miscegenation, [Father] did not seem knowledgeable about any 

problems that would be to a miscegenated child in a small town 

like Exeter. [Mother] was aware of it; [Father] was not.”

Regarding his latest, 2019 report, he stated “I reviewed 

reports from Dr. Evans-Barton from Georgia and Dr. Fabricius 

from Arizona, and my own report from 2014 and the addendum 

from 2014, and other materials. . . . I reviewed the statistics that 

greatschools.com produces in relocation issues and studied the 

scoring that’s given to the schools that [Child] would possibly go 

to, one here and one there.” He explained “[g]reatschools.com is 

statistics derived from the data that the various school districts 

give to the organization. And they do statistics. They do the 

analysis on a ten-point scale . . . they make an overall rating of 

five for Wyoming Area.” Further, he explained, “I also looked at 

this other part of Pennsylvania in another case I had, which is not 

far from here, Lycoming County. I had three cases in Lycoming 

with Judge Clinton Smith. And I used the same resource, 

greatschools.com. And it rated very, very low. It rated six or five, 

as I recall. I think it’s general knowledge to people in academia 

that the Boston area provides by far [the better] academic 

environment for children than Central Pennsylvania.” He stated “. 

. . [t]he Wyoming Area School District or SD was rated or is rated 

by the greatschools five out of ten. The Lexington, Massachusetts 

was rated nine out of ten.” He stated he disagrees with Dr. EvansBarton’s opinion that “[preserving a relationship a parent/child 

with a non-relocating parent is, she says, impossible.” Further, “I 

think of military families; I think of all the relocation cases I’ve 

done where the parents are very involved long distance. So I don’t 

understand how she would conclude it’s impossible.”

In conclusion he added, “[s]o I disagree with that 

statement, relocation will emotionally harm the child.” “With 

regard to the quality of life, there’s no question in my mind that 

the educational facilities for [Child] through the years ahead would 

be far superior in Lexington, Massachusetts. That’s a primary 

concern. But secondary to that but close up would be the cultural 

factor. I’ve spent some time in Luzerne County. I don’t see it as a 

diverse community for a miscegenated child. On the other hand, 

I looked up statistics from our national government. There’s 

86,000 people who reside in Lexington, Massachusetts. The 

percentage of Indian Americans is 2.28 percent. So there’s a 
J-S34014-20

- 7 -

rather large community available for interaction. I think that’s 

significant, also.”

He further concluded, “. . . a plenary hearing should happen 

once. If it’s done right, that’s what we hope for. For our children 

to be caught up in litigation forever and ever is not good.”

Father explained to the Court that he is employed by 

Intermetro Industries in the R&D Department and his annual 

salary is $110,000. 

Father explained Intermetro permits flexibility regarding his 

work schedule: “. . . [Child] needs something, whether it’s a call 

from the school or whether it’s a call or text from [Mother] or a 

doctor, I’m able to leave work and either go to school or run to a 

doctor’s appointment, which I’ve done several, many times over 

the course of [Child]’s life.”

Father presented dozens of pictures regarding [Child]’s 

familial and friendly relationships and activities. One picture was 

explained: “This is Friday, February 15, 2019. This is [Child] at 

our friend Lisa Price’s farm. We did some dog training or our dogs 

that day on a Friday. I had part of the day off of work, and [Child] 

thought it was very, very interesting. The dog, the whiter dog, 

that’s our dog Maya’s mother. And the other dog with the orange 

collar, that is Jamie, that’s our dog’s littermate brother.” Another 

picture was described as, “. . . that’s Christmas Eve of last year. 

He’s hanging out with his cousins, Cameron and Scott. The middle 

photo is half of Fourth of July of 2018, that’s [Child] with his 

cousins Gianna and Gabriella. [Child]’s in the middle of the 

picture. He’s also right smack dab in the middle of their ages.” 

Another he explained was “[t]hen November 21, 2018. That’s 

[Child] helping my dad grind some meat in the garage of our 

home.” Father continued, “The next picture, page one, top photo, 

October 12, 2018. That’s [Child] playing with two kids in the 

neighborhood. That is Braden and Bryce Gaylord. And then in the 

middle photo on page one, April 3, 2019. That’s [Child] playing 

street hockey with the neighborhood children again, that’s Bryce 

Gaylord and Chase Clark.’ Another photo was explained, “. . . 

October 13, 2018, this is [STEM] day held at the Pittston Area 

High School. [Child] was building some type of molecule replica 

with cheese balls and toothpicks.” Father added that Mother was 

not present for the [STEM] day activities. He further elaborated 

on photos from the December 18, 2019, Breakfast with Santa at 
J-S34014-20

- 8 -

Pittston Area School; the April 9, 2019, Bunny Brunch; the August 

27, 2018, the Kindergarten Orientation Day; the October 23, 

2018, Patriot Dash (Father chaperoned the event for [Child]’s 

Kindergarten class); the March 31, 2018, Easter Egg hunt held at 

the Holy Redeemer church grounds; October 10, 2018, Roba’s 

Farm Kindergarten class field trip (Father chaperoned the event 

for [Child]’s Kindergarten class). Father testified that Mother did 

not attend any of the above–mentioned events. 

Father presented a stack of pictures and explained that “[i]t 

showed [Child] playing baseball and enjoying himself playing the 

games, enjoying himself playing with teammates. It’s showing 

him enjoying himself with me as the coach and probably some of 

all of us together with the teammates; but, yes.”

Father testified that he has coached [Child]’s soccer teams: 

“. . . [i]n the spring, I was the head coach. In the fall, I was an 

assistant coach.” He explained Mother was “not in favor of [Child 

playing soccer].” He elaborated, “She thought that it was too 

dangerous and would cause concussions and CTE which I believe 

stands for chronic traumatic encephalitis.” Father explained 

[Child] has missed one-half of his soccer and T-ball games due to 

Mother refusing to take him during her periods of custody. “. . . 

[I]n the fall of this year, he missed approximately half of his 

games. And in the spring, he missed approximately half of his Tball games.”

Father testified, “. . . [L.G.] is like a perfectly normal, happy 

kid. I mean, we’re very, very fortunate. I mean, he’s happy. He 

eats well, he likes six-year–old foods, he likes his vegetables, he 

likes McDonald’s. He loves to run around. He likes to bike, he likes 

to go see the kids, he likes to play soccer. He loves to play with 

the dogs. He knows how to train the dogs. You know watching 

that develop has been interesting. He pretty much falls into the 

center of the bell curve on what you would expect of a six-yearold as far as likes. I mean, he likes ice cream. He needs - I mean, 

he’s six, so he needs to be disciplined, which I discipline him. But, 

I mean, he’s not at all a troubled child.”

He added that [Child] has not had any health or injury 

problems in the last five years: “No. [Child] runs, he jumps, he 

plays. Does he get the occasional cold? Does he get the 

[occasional] ear infection? Yes. But he’s like we’re so blessed 

because I know people that have where their kid have health 
J-S34014-20

- 9 -

problems and all you can do is pray for them to help them out, 

but we are blessed that [Child] is the running, jumping. He’s 

conversational. He’s mentally with it. He’s very lucid. He knows 

who to trust. He knows who not to trust. We are very, very blessed 

and fortunate with [Child]’s current physical and mental state.”

Father explained his opposition to relocation that [Child] “is 

a normal, healthy, happy child. He is thriving in his current world 

that he knows which is school, family, the area, church . . . he is 

such a well-rounded, normal, well –behaving happy kid.” He 

further stated, “[Child’s] continued relationship with both parents 

is extremely important for his health and well-being.” He added, 

“Now, do I intend to be his dad? Now, I – it’s almost impossible 

or it is impossible to do from six hours away. There’s no little 

league, there’s no soccer, there’s no school functions, there’s no 

homework, there’s no making him his meal, there’s no giving him 

his bath. Okay. He likes to play with his friends. Okay, I worry 

about the downstream effect for [Child] more than anything.” 

Mother testified her address is 69 Emerson Gardens Road, 

Lexington, Massachusetts. She stated “. . . I stay, when I’m in 

town in Pennsylvania, at 102 Schooley Avenue, Exeter 

Pennsylvania,” and Kate Mangan and her two children live there, 

also. 

She stated she met Father while working at Schott Optical, 

in Duryea and Exeter. She explained their initial relationship, 

“[a]fter the initial encounter with [Father], he did not - he basically 

told me that he was not interested in a relationship. He was 

interested in buying me dinner occasionally and taking me home. 

That was about the extent of what he wanted.” After becoming 

pregnant “he introduced me to his parents and - he moved in with 

me for some time until it was intolerable for me, and I kicked him 

out of my house.” She stated their relationship ended before 

[Child] was born.

She described her employment at Schott and her degree of 

education. “Until 2018, I worked at Schott . . . I started as a 

productive development scientist at Schott. And I moved into 

global product management with direct report to Germany . . . I 

was a Ph.D in physics.”

Mother explained her early career aspirations. She stated 

prior to [Child]’s birth she “imagined that I would follow normal 
J-S34014-20

- 10 -

career ladder and expected to be in leadership position in a 

reasonable amount of time which is normal for industry careers 

and have some management responsibilities associated with it.” 

She explained “she was the global product manager for laser 

materials which supplied laser pieces all over the world for cuttingedge laser weapons.” She stated “travel was directly related to 

performance in terms of meeting the fiscal-year plan for numbers 

or profit. So when you have customers in Japan, in Korea, in 

Germany, all over the world, in India, the expectation was that 

you meet those numbers. An[d] in order to meet those numbers, 

you would have to go talk to the customers on-site and see what 

they’re doing and give them solutions as a scientist and as the 

lead of the product.” After meeting with the talent management 

at Schott, they suggested her career opportunities regarding a 

management position would increase if she would move to 

Germany.

Subsequently, she decided to further her education and 

attended [MIT]’s Executive Masters of Business Administration, in 

2016 to 2018. During that period, the custody schedule 

established by the Honorable Muroski was maintained as much as 

possible. “. . . [S]ome switches between Wednesday and 

Thursdays were occasionally granted when [Father] agreed. Most 

of the time, [Child] came with me during class time. Especially 

during the ten-day schedules that I’ve had on location in 

classrooms, [Child] came with me; and I would arrange for a 

family member to babysit him.” “So my brother - on short 

weekends, my brother watched him while I was in class. 

Occasionally, he came to classes with me. And on other lengthy 

periods, I had my friend from California fly in to help me take care 

of [Child] while I was in classes.” [Mother] graduated from the 

MIT MBA [program] on June 7th, 2018.

Regarding her employment at Schott, Mother stated she felt 

“that I was being pushed more and more into sales and that my 

role was becoming a salesperson rather than being able to apply 

any of my education that I had gained over the years, not physics, 

not the management, not analytics, none of this.” Around this 

time, as she was interested in “some more responsibility and a 

less sales - oriented position with Schott”, she began seeking 

other employment. She was offered a leadership job by a 

classmate from MIT and interviewed with AXA Group, a financial 

advisor, property and [casualty] insurance company. She stated 

the “[t]he monetary compensation was significantly higher than I 
J-S34014-20

- 11 -

was receiving at Schott. And also, my ability to grow into a real 

executive career was also much more plausible within the United 

States; and I didn’t have to travel very much once I was on 

location in Boston.” She accepted the offer at AXA in July of 2018 

and ended her employment at Schott in the same month.

She explained that while in Lexington “. . . I have friends 

with kids [Child]’s age. So we usually spend time with them. We 

go to birthday parties. What [Child] likes doing mostly is going to 

the Children’s Museum in Boston and also the Science Museum . . 

. and [Child] enjoys the exhibits. He enjoys interacting with the 

various play, science activities that they have. One time that we 

were there, the MIT freshman engineering students were 

exhibiting their product designs that they were having the kids try

out. These were various toys that they had invented as part of 

their school project for mechanical engineering class, and [Child] 

got to test it out. . . They get to do electronics, wiring, and 

diagrams, things like that. So it’s opportunities like that that I 

haven’t really had in the immediate area.”

Mother then described the schools she researched in the 

Lexington Area. She stated, “[s]o the school system in Lexington, 

Belmont, Newton, Will, any of the Metford, Bedford, that local 

area, they are all 9 or 10 A-Plus school districts which there would 

be – it’s very - having Brown University, Boston University, 

Harvard, MIT, UMass, Northeastern, with every college, very high 

level colleges concentrated in a small area, the education is –

there’s a huge focus on education by the parents in the area, by 

the universities putting stuff out into the local areas. And the 

schools have a lot of funding.”

She explained that [Child] is currently attending the Pittston 

Area School District for 2018 and 2019. Regarding his 

performance, she stated, “. . . [Child] performed well in the tasks 

from what I could see. I also worked with him quite a lot. He was 

quite slow in coming up in terms of the handwriting. But he’s much 

more mathematically-orientated. He could use much more 

challenge in terms of his math skills. When he started school, I 

would say that he could add and subtract. They didn’t quite get 

into that until later in the year. So in terms of - so to me, it’s 

setting expectations, right? You can say he did phenomenally well. 

He thrived when your expectations are low from the children all 

together. But if I compare [Child] to the other children in the 
J-S34014-20

- 12 -

Boston area, he’s quite behind.” Further she stated, “[a]nd he 

could be further advanced than where he is today.”

Regarding [Child]’s extracurricular activities, Mother stated, 

“So I went to the parent teacher conferences. They set up different 

ones for [Father] and I, his teacher. But I have not attended any 

of the PTO events because I’m trying to maintain my job which I 

think is more important.” Mother stated she has been living in the 

Pittston area since April 2011. She stated, “It’s been quite 

challenging for me to make social connections in this area. First 

of all, my skin color - I would say to be completely open - is an 

obstacle to it. The only source of support that I have had over the 

years is – Beth [Gober-Mangan]’s family, Beth and her family.” 

She continued, “I’ve attended a few birthday parties. It was really 

awkward for me. I was at Chuck-E-Cheese’s for one of the 

birthday parties. No one really - I went up to talk to them. No one 

really came up to talk to me. All the moms that knew each other 

kind of grouped together. So it was a very awkward and intense 

situation for me. They just really - it felt to me like they didn’t 

really appreciate me being there. And I’m always extremely 

concerned about the fact that how [Father] and his family bash 

my relationship. And I don’t know who they know and how they’re 

going to act around me. So it’s been a very tense, very awkward 

environment for me. When we started going through the custody 

situation, [Father] went and said very mean and negative things 

about me to pretty much everybody on the floor at Schott. So I 

was very worried about interacting. That also affected my ability 

to form social connections in the area. Him being so integrated 

into the community, I don’t know - even my [neighbor] was a - in 

Pittston area - was a witness for him in his witness list on the 

pretrial brief. I mean, so I don’t know who I can interact with in a 

safe manner. So I don’t feel safe, yeah. So I would say other that 

Beth’s family, I have not had many social opportunities for social 

interactions in this area.”

But she stated, while she’s in Boston, “It’s completely 

different. I feel completely safe. I have significant friends, female 

friends, highly accomplished. They’re smart. Their kids are smart. 

I feel welcomed, and I feel like I belong there compared to here.”

She further testified her father and step-mom live in Ocala, 

Florida and her brother lives in New Jersey. Her extended family 

lives in Australia and her close friends live in San Francisco and 
J-S34014-20

- 13 -

Washington, D.C. She explained the majority of her family is “still 

in India.”

She went on to explain the activities [Child] enjoys. She 

stated, “So in terms of sports, I would say his favorite – he’s a 

water baby. He loves the water. He likes swimming. So I was 

happy that we found that. He is not coordinated enough for team 

sports, I would say. I haven’t - he’s interested in soccer from what 

I can see. He likes bicycling, scooting, the normal activities that 

kids like. He likes guitar. I’ve seen him actively trying to practice 

on guitar, and he likes piano. So I would like to get him into a 

musical program. He likes doing math . . . I would say, from his 

school experiences and from his daycare, in terms of comparing 

athletic ability of other kids around him, I wouldn’t say he’s 

athletic, per se. But I think kids should be well-rounded. So I 

would like to see him take up a sport.”

She then explained that “. . . [Child] is not receiving here is 

a cultural education. He is half Indian. There’s no denying that. 

He’s not just Luther[a]n Catholic. So I don’t see any opportunity 

for him to experience anything related to my traditions or my -

anything Indian in this area.”

She described the cultural activities in Lexington: “[s]o we 

have many festivals, the festival of lights, the Diwali Festival 

where the community gets together. There’s an Indian-American 

League in Lexington that we go to these activities, dances, 

traditional dances, teaching that for kids. They have soccer. They 

have cricket. They have all these sport activities that they 

organize. They have Navratri which is New Year’s celebrations -

Lexington does - and Chinese New Year’s celebrations. So 

observing Ramadan - having the ability to participate in the global 

activities, that’s not something I’ve seen here.” She stated she 

has “seen some activity in Scranton. But it’s mainly Hindu related. 

And I’m not Hindu. I’m Christian.”

Regarding her experiences in the Pittston and Luzerne 

County area, she stated, “I feel like I’m in jail here somewhat. I 

feel alone. I don’t have many connections, so yeah. It’s not a 

happy place for me. And it hasn’t been in a long time, ever since 

this whole custody stuff started. [Father] and his family, I would 

say, have made my life hell. I’ve had incidents where people were 

trying to run me off the road. I don’t know who is related and why. 

So I’ve driven in the shop parking lot to wait it out.”
J-S34014-20

- 14 -

She explained [Child]’s daily routine, during her periods of 

custody: “Usually I start my work at 4:30 or 5 a.m. in the 

morning. I take meetings and calls with India at that time. And 

then when [Child] wakes up, he wakes up anywhere from 6:45 to 

7:30 depending on when he went to bed. And I get him dressed, 

and I drive him to the daycare. And then I come back to work. So 

that’s my typical schedule when I’m in Pittston or Exeter. And then 

when I’m in Boston - usually, I’m in Boston when I don’t have 

[Child]. When I have [Child], I stay home with him and do my 

work from home, yeah. . . And I pick him up in the evenings 

between 5 and 6 from the daycare. So [Child] takes the bus from 

the daycare to Pittston Area. And then takes the bus back from 

daycare to - from Pittston Area to daycare. And on [Father]’s 

custody, he picks [Child] from either the daycare or from the 

school.”

Regarding her recent work and travel schedule, Mother 

stated, “It’s been fairly suicidal. I mean, there is quite - depending 

on trying to get back from Pittston from Boston on a Thursday, 

it’s - in traffic, it’s a fairly significant effort to make sure that I get 

everything done, to make sure that I am getting the face time I 

need, that I’m visible, all of this. So it’s been physically incredible. 

But I’ve managed to deal without any traffic incidents or any 

major accidents. I mean, I’ve driven, I would say, 50,000 miles 

so far.” “My time with [Child], I would say. It has affected some 

amount of the quality time with [Child] because I am tired after 

all of this, so yeah.” 

In response to her counsel’s question regarding the benefits 

to [Child] if relocation is granted, she responded, “[s]ignificant to 

me is the education system, the environment, the safety, that he’s 

got a multi-cultural environment, and the ability to participate in 

activities other than just church. And I would say [Father]’s family 

is extremely homophobic. So he’s around people who are a bit 

more open-minded. He’s got opportunity to participate in the 

robotics program at the MIT museum. He’s got opportunity to 

interact with that medium. He’s got events and teachings that 

they do in terms of computers and coding at the science museum 

and the children’s museum. And these are so integrated into the 

community. The kids overall just seem to be doing so much more 

entrepreneurially at a younger age than anywhere here from what 

I can observe. And so I feel like overall - if he and I want to start 

a company in Boston, for us, there’s so much more opportunity 
J-S34014-20

- 15 -

for us to get the funding and support for the two of us to start 

something from a new product, a new idea there than here.”

In response to her counsel’s question regarding the benefits 

to herself if relocation is granted, she stated, “I’d have friends. I’d 

have community. I feel safe. Mentally, I’m a basket case here. I 

don’t feel comfortable. And people will tell you, I will ask, who’s 

that: who’s that. So I’m often at my friend’s Beth bar where they 

serve customers. And I don’t like going to the bar area where 

people are because I don’t know who’s showing up there that’s 

[Father]’s friends in order to check up on [Child] and me. So I try 

to stay in the back and try to help her cook. So it’s not a 

comfortable situation for me.” She went on to state regarding her 

motivation to relocate “[i]t’s motivated - and if I’m completely 

honest, I would say I have some motivation behind separating 

[Father]’s mother from [Child]’s life a little bit because I feel like 

she's the cause of a lot of bad phrases that [Child] - and criticisms 

for me. So I would say, yeah, there is a factor for me.”

On cross examination, Mother was asked how the difference 

between living in the Pittston area making $129,000 and living in 

the Boston area making $190,000 would benefit [Child], she 

replied, “It makes a huge difference . . . I can afford a nanny, for 

instance.” She further explained, “If I wanted to, it would be 

additional help for me. It would be someone I trust. It would be 

someone who could help with doing cooking, some of the laundry, 

so yes. I think I don’t need one, no. I can handle all of this myself 

without the help of a nanny.”

Father’s counsel questioned Mother regarding the courtordered Right of First Refusal: She responded, “It just says when 

I’m traveling for work but when my primary work location is 

Boston, if I ask Beth to pick up my son from daycare because I’m 

a half an hour late to get there by 6 p.m., I don’t see a reason to 

text [Father]. I don’t need [Father]’s approval to do my day-today.”

In response to Father’s counsel’s question regarding 

Mother’s attendance to [Child]’s school’s extracurricular events, 

such as field trips, the Patriot Dash, Breakfast with Santa, the 

Bunny Brunch, Easter candy, she stated, “I already said I have 

not attended any of these. And I never felt comfortable attending 

any of these because these were all [Father]’s friends. And I felt 

like it was also scheduled when he knew I was out of town.”
J-S34014-20

- 16 -

Additionally, in response to Father's counsel’s question 

regarding [Father]’s attendance at T-Ball, she replied, “No I didn’t 

agree to him playing T-ball which is why I’m saying I don’t know 

whether he played or not.” In response to the question of why 

[Child] doesn’t go to practice or games, when he’s with Mother, 

she replied, “Because it’s my time, and I want to spend it with my 

child the way I want to. . . It’s not whether or not I want him to 

play T-ball or not. It’s that I want to spend time with my child the 

way I want to spend time with my child. When I’m working this 

hard, I have opportunity for spending time with him other than 

the way how [Father] prescribes my time should be.”

When asked if [Child] plays soccer for the Pittston Stoners, 

she replied, “I don’t know the schedule. It’s not important to me. 

I haven’t paid attention to it.” “I think - I know that he signed him 

up for some soccer. I don’t know if it’s Stoners soccer or whatever 

soccer it is.” She further stated she never attended any of his 

soccer or T-ball games. “Again, I’ve already stated that during the 

times that [Father] has [Child], I am in Boston working. Again, I 

do need to make a living. So there is priority here.”

In response to counsel’s question regarding her referring to 

Father as a sperm donor, she replied, “I have yes . . . [b]ecause 

he was never interested in being an actual father. And I strongly 

feel that the majority of what he’s doing here is more about the 

fight rather than actually being a parent.”

Father presented nearly two dozen witnesses that testified 

they had observed Father and [Child]. The witnesses described 

events they participated in with the two (soccer, church, school 

field trips, etc.) and the interactions between them. The witnesses 

described the relationship as loving and Father as devoted to his 

son. 

Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, 8-31.

On March 5, 2020, the court entered an order, and corresponding 

opinion, denying Mother’s petition for relocation. The court also concluded the 

July 11, 2016 order “of shared legal custody with Mother as primary physical 

custodian and Father enjoying partial physical custody with right of first 
J-S34014-20

- 17 -

refusal, provides for the best interests” of Child. Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, 

at 42. Mother filed the present, timely appeal. 

Mother presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an 

error of law in its application of the relocation factors, 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(H), more specifically:

i. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(2) by failing to consider the evidence presented 

regarding the increased educational opportunities and 

increased cultural opportunities available to the minor 

child if relocation were to be permitted?

ii. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(3) in determining that “Father’s present periods 

of partial custody would be greatly affected by Mother’s 

relocation with [Child]?”

iii. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(5) by failing to consider the evidence presented 

regarding the attempts by Father to thwart Mother’s 

relationship with the minor child?

iv. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(6) by failing to adequately consider the 

evidence presented regarding the enhancement to the 

general quality of life for Mother?

v. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(7) by failing to adequately consider the 

evidence presented regarding the enhancement to the 

general quality of life for the child?

vi. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an 

error of law in its application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(H)(10) by failing to adequately consider the 
J-S34014-20

- 18 -

evidence presented regarding the fact that the child is a 

miscegenated child and the importance of such a 

consideration in his development?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in determining that Mother failed to meet her burden of 

establishing that relocation will serve the best interest of the 

child?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in determining that denying the relocation best serves the 

needs and welfare of the minor child?

4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law by placing significant weight on the need for consistency in 

the child’s life as justification for denying the relocation?

5. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law by disregarding the recommendation of the Guardian ad 

Litem, who recommended granting the requesting relocation?

6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in allowing Torri J. Evans-Barton to testify as an expert in 

the field of fatherlessness children in relocation over Mother’s 

objection?

7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in recognizing the field of fatherless children in relocation as 

a recognized and accepted field of expertise?

8. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in failing to recognize that the weight of evidence favors 

relocation of Mother and the child?

Appellant’s Brief, at 5-8 (some capitalization omitted).

All claims advanced in Mother’s appeal concern the trial court’s order 

denying her petition for relocation. We review the entire record with deference 

to the trial court’s credibility assessments:

[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of 

discretion. This Court must accept findings of the trial court that 
J-S34014-20

- 19 -

are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does 

not include making independent factual determinations. In 

addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the 

evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided 

over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand. 

However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or 

inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether 

the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the 

evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court 

only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of 

the sustainable findings of the trial court.

A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32, 35-36 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted). The propriety of relocation must be decided on a case-bycase basis that does not easily conform to bright line rules:

With any child custody case, this Court has long stated that the 

paramount concern is the best interests of the child. This standard 

requires a case-by-case assessment of all of the factors that may 

legitimately affect the physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual 

well-being of the child. When a custody dispute involves a request 

by a party to relocate, we have explained, there is no black letter 

formula that easily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custody 

disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case-bycase basis.

C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417, 420-421 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

Section 5337(h) of the Child Custody Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, 

sets forth the factors which a court must consider when determining whether 

to grant a proposed relocation:

(h) Relocation factors. — In determining whether to grant a 

proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, 

giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the 

safety of the child:
J-S34014-20

- 20 -

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration 

of the child’s relationship with the party proposing to 

relocate and with the nonrelocating party, siblings and other 

significant persons in the child’s life.

(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and 

the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s 

physical, educational and emotional development, taking 

into consideration any special needs of the child.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the 

nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody 

arrangements, considering the logistics and financial 

circumstances of the parties.

(4) The child’s preference, taking into consideration the age 

and maturity of the child.

(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of 

either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the 

child and the other party.

(6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality 

of life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not 

limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational 

opportunity.

(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality 

of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or 

emotional benefit or educational opportunity.

(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or 

opposing the relocation.

(9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or 

member of the party's household and whether there is a 

continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party.

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

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). “The party proposing the relocation has the burden 

of establishing that the relocation will serve the best interest of the child as 
J-S34014-20

- 21 -

shown under the factors set forth in subsection (h).” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5337(i)(1). Moreover, “[e]ach party 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).

[Lastly, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d)] requires the trial court to 

set forth its mandatory assessment of the sixteen [Section 

5328(a) custody] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant 

must file a notice of appeal. Section 5323(d) applies to cases 

involving custody and relocation. 

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. A court’s 

explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately 

addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section 5323(d). 

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted).

At the outset, we note the trial court did not conduct a Section 5328(a) 

custody factors analysis. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 31-32. 

However, neither party objected to this omission. Moreover, a review of 

Mother’s arguments on appeal do not concern the lack of any Section 5328(a) 

analysis. Accordingly, Mother has waived any argument regarding the court’s 

omission. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). We now turn to the merits of Mother’s claims.

Mother first claims the trial court abused its discretion and committed 

an error of law in its application of the following relocation factors – Section 

5337(h)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), and (10). See Appellant’s Brief, at 26-48. 

Central to each factor, Mother complains the trial court failed to adequately 
J-S34014-20

- 22 -

weigh certain evidence that was in her favor. For example, as to Factor 2 (the 

age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the 

relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational and emotional 

development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child), Mother 

argues the court “failed to adequately weigh the evidence presented regarding 

the increased education and cultural opportunities available to the child if 

relocation were to be permitted.” Id., at 27. She states that the child was 

considered to be advanced by his daycare provider, and she presented 

uncontroverted evidence that Lexington schools were given a higher rating 

than Luzerne schools. Id., at 28. She also points out that her witnesses and 

the GAL corroborated this evidence. See id.

Another example is Factor 3 (the feasibility of preserving the 

relationship between the non–relocating party and the child through suitable 

custody arrangement, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of 

the parties). Mother states she proposed that the “every other weekend 

scheduled be maintained with the parties meeting at a halfway point or her 

doing all the transportation at times she came to visit the area and also for 

extended time periods during holidays and when the child is off from school.” 

Id., at 31. She also suggested every other week during the summer time for 

Father to have custody. See id. Mother states this “proposed custodial 

schedule provides a very similar amount of custodial time for Father[,]” and 

therefore, “Father’s periods of custody would be minimally impacted, if at all.” 
J-S34014-20

- 23 -

Id., at 32. Additionally, she states that because she is no longer enrolled in 

school and has less travel associated with the new employment position, 

“Father will not miss periods due to his inability to exercise the right of first 

refusal[.]” Id., at 33.

A final example is Factor 7 (whether the relocation will enhance the 

general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or 

emotional benefit or educational opportunity), in which Mother asserts the 

court failed to properly credit enhancements to her situation that would 

provide improvements to Child’s quality of life. See id., at 41. She states the 

court failed to consider substantial increases in her “compensation package

and benefits and in her psychological well-being and the impact such would 

have on the child’s well-being.” Id., at 42. Mother suggests the court failed to 

adequately consider additional possible advantages, including the educational 

and cultural opportunities of Lexington. See id., at 43-45. Lastly, she alleges 

the court disregarded the fact that Child has spent extensive time in 

Massachusetts since 2016 and demonstrates a comfortability level with being 

in the Boston area and traveling back and forth. See id., at 44-46.

Contrary to Mother’s position, “[i]t is within the trial court’s purview as 

the finder of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in 

each particular case.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(emphasis added). Additionally,

[t]he parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court 

places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern of the trial 
J-S34014-20

- 24 -

court is the best interest of the child. Appellate interference is 

unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration of the best interest 

of the child was careful and thorough, and we are unable to find 

any abuse of discretion.

R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201, 208 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).

As noted above, the trial court issued an opinion, in conjunction with its 

relocation order, which contains a thorough analysis of each statutorily 

mandated relocation factor. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 33-38. We 

will highlight the examples we pointed to in Mother’s argument. 

As for Factor 2, the court pointed to the following: (1) Child is a sevenyears-old minor, who attends first grade at the Pittston Area School District, 

and is doing well in school and is secure in daycare; (2) he has never attended 

the school in Lexington, and testimony indicated that while the Lexington 

school system is more highly rated than the Luzerne County schools, Child is 

presently receiving age-appropriate education in Luzerne County; (3) Mother 

believes Child would receive more advanced education in Lexington; (4) Child

has no special needs; and (5) Child receives medical services as needed in 

Luzerne County. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 34.

Concerning Factor 3, the court considered the following: (1) the 

proposed city of relocation, Lexington, is 300 miles from the Greater Pittston 

area; (2) it is a six-hour trip one-way to Lexington from the Pittston area; (3) 

Mother commutes frequently to Lexington for employment and has called the 

trip “suicidal;” (4) Father’s present periods of partial custody would be greatly 

affected by the relocation; (5) both parties are financially stable; (6) Mother 
J-S34014-20

- 25 -

proposed Father may have additional periods in the summer and holidays 

breaks; and (7) Dr. Lewis suggested meeting halfway to exchange Child and 

video conferencing. See id., at 34-35.

Lastly, as for Factor 7, the court noted: (1) although Mother earns more 

compensation in Boston, finances of both parties are and have been adequate 

to meet Child’s needs since birth; (2) while Lexington schools are rated higher 

than the Luzerne County schools, Child is presently receiving proper ageappropriate education in Luzerne County; (3) Mother stated more cultural 

diversity and global cultural activities are available in the Lexington area, but 

not in the Pittston area; (4) according to Mother’s witnesses, Lexington has 

children’s communities, museum memberships, and good schools affiliated 

with nearby, major universities; (5) Father testified Child is receiving proper 

education in Luzerne County; (6) Child’s emotional needs are also met and he 

is happy and thriving; (7) Child is safe and secure in his school, neighborhood 

and community activities, and Luzerne County has been his home since birth.

See id., at 36-37.

It is evident the trial court considered and credited Mother’s evidence. 

Nevertheless, it was within the court’s purview as the fact-finder to determine 

which factors are most salient and critical, and here, the court found some 

factors were more important than the ones Mother wishes to highlight. See

M.J.M., 63 A.3d at 339. The record overwhelmingly supports the court’s 

findings, particularly regarding Child’s current education and social success 
J-S34014-20

- 26 -

and his need for stability. As such, we discern no abuse of discretion in the 

court's assessment of the Section 5337(h) factors. Therefore, Mother’s first 

claim is unavailing.

Next, addressing her second and third claims together, Mother claims 

“the trial court erred and abused its discretion in determining that [she] failed 

to meet her burden of establishing that the relocation will serve the best 

interest of the child and in determining that denying the relocation best served 

the needs and welfare of the child.” Appellant’s Brief, at 49. Mother points to 

the court’s finding that she offered testimony that relocation may be in her 

best interest but it was not convinced that relocation was in Child’s best 

interest and that his physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being was 

sound. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 41. Mother states she “presented 

evidence to substantiate the benefits to the child that far exceeded those 

which relate to her personal happiness.” Appellant’s Brief, at 50. She alleges:

[She] considered the best interests of the child when obtaining 

her MBA, when leaving her employment at Schott, and also when 

researching potential schools and cultural opportunities for the 

child. Mother presented evidence regarding her significant 

increase in compensation and ancillary benefits; the increased and 

improved educational opportunities available to the child in 

Lexington, Massachusetts, based on her own research and 

experience observing the school districts; the cultural 

opportunities and access to diversity that the child would be 

exposed to as a child who is of half-Indian descent; her increased 

availability to the minor child; and the increase in her own 

personal well-being and feelings of safety, which will obviously 

positively impact the child.

Id. (citations to reproduced record omitted).
J-S34014-20

- 27 -

Mother states, “By failing to recognize or credit these improvements for 

the child, the trial court elevated Father’s interests over the best interests of 

the child.” Id., at 51. Lastly, she contends the court disregarded the testimony 

of the GAL and Dr. Lewis, who both recommended that relocation was in the 

best interests of Child. Id., at 51-52.

In assessing the best interests of Child, the court opined: 

Mother and Father enjoy shared legal custody with Mother 

having primary physical custody and Father having partial physical 

custody with right of first refusal. The parents have always 

enjoyed financial stability. Each provides adequately for [Child]’s 

physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. Each parent 

devotes full attention to [Child] and when Mother may be 

unavailable, she has made proper child-care arrangements to 

ensure stability for [Child]. Father likewise provides full attention 

to [Child] and has an extended family available as a back-up, if 

needed. [Child] is in elementary school and daycare in settings 

which he is thriving educationally and socially with familiarity of 

friends and environment. [Child] is enjoying age-appropriate 

activities through school and extracurricular activities. He is most 

familiar with his neighborhood, well liked in his community, and a 

popular, active member in this community. The parties are to be 

commended for raising such an exceptional young man. His bond 

with both parents is strong, he is well-cared-for and loved. He is 

a happy, young child. He has numerous friends, family members, 

teammates, caring neighbors, as evidenced by the testimony.

Mother’s desire to advance in her professional career is most 

commendable. Mother testified to her being safe and comfortable 

in Lexington. She enjoys a circle of friends and classmates and coworkers in Lexington. She has reaped a larger salary and 

challenging employment with possibility of greater opportunity to 

secure financing and support in pursuit of additional business 

ventures. She may seek the employ of a trusted nanny to assist 

with, inter alia, household chores.

Mother and Father are both financially stable and have been 

so even prior to Mother’s present employment and increased 
J-S34014-20

- 28 -

salary. No testimony was offered to indicate [Child]’s needs were 

ever inadequately met due to financial issues.

Mother offered testimony that the schools in Lexington are 

recognized as superior to those in Greater Pittston. Mother 

attested to availability of institutions of higher learning, museums, 

and cultural diversity and opportunity in Lexington. She testified 

that children overall just seem to be doing so much more

entrepreneurially at a younger age than anywhere here when 

compared to Lexington.

The Court applauds any parent who wants what is best for 

their children. But when parents cannot agree, the Court must 

determine what is in the best interests of the child. “We reaffirm 

that in a relocation case, as in any custody case, the paramount 

concern remains the child’s, not the parent’s best interest.” S.M. 

v. R.J., 1802 MDA 2016.

“It is beyond the belief of this court that any parent would 

petition to relocate their children if said relocation would not 

contribute to the personal happiness and emotional well-being of 

the petitioning parent. If these particular benefits to the relocating 

parent were to carry such weight alone, few relocations petitions 

demand much more attention and time by the court, few would 

be denied, and the best interest of the children would take a back 

seat to the interests of the relocating parent in virtually every 

case.” Graham v. Graham, 794 A.2d 912, 917 (Pa. Super. 2002).

[Child] is a normal, healthy child; thriving in his current 

world that he knows which is school, family, neighborhood and 

church. He is such a well-rounded, normal, well-behaving kid. The 

need for stability and continuity in [Child]’s education, family life 

and community life is paramount. Since birth, these needs have 

been adequately addressed and will not be disturbed at this point 

in his young life. 

Both parents value education and vocational success. 

[Child] is appropriately educated for his young age. Parents should 

cooperate to enroll him in additional programs that may be of 

interest to him, based upon his liking. Proven successful stability 

and continuity in [Child]’s life abhors disruption and relocation to 

another community.
J-S34014-20

- 29 -

Finances are not and have never been an issue[] with the 

parties. [Child] has and will continue to have all his material needs 

provided for by both parents.

Mother offered testimony that relocation may be in her best 

interest but the Court is not convinced relocation is in the best

interest of this seven-year-old, first-grade child. [Child]’s 

demonstrated development and success will not be disturbed at 

this stage of his life. His physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual 

well-being is sound.

The parties must cooperate to expose [Child] to the cultural 

traditions of both parents and all others. During Mother’s periods 

of custody, she is encouraged to participate with [Child] in the 

Dewali Festival, the Indian-American League and the Navrati New 

Year’s celebrations in Lexington. Father is encouraged to continue 

attending his Church’s activities with [Child] during his periods of 

custody.

Mother, although sincere in her motivation, has not 

established that granting relocation will serve the best interests of 

[Child]. Additionally, Father has established his motives are 

honest in seeking to prevent relocation.

[Child], age 7, a first grader, is in a developmental stage of 

his young life where his physical, educational and emotional needs 

are presently and demonstrably adequately met. He is thriving 

and his best interests demand non-interference with his present, 

successful lifestyle. His emotional and educational needs are 

properly met. His quality of life is thriving and promising.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 38-42.

Mother again attempts to argue the court did not give proper weight to 

certain evidence that was in her favor. However, she fails to present case law 

in which financial, educational, and cultural opportunities are the deciding

factors in granting a relocation request. Additionally, while Mother presented 

this evidence, the court was within its discretion to conclude these 

improvements did not outweigh other factors and circumstances that 
J-S34014-20

- 30 -

demonstrate Child’s physical, educational and emotional needs are presently 

and adequately being met. Indeed, as the court pointed out, both parents 

share a strong bond with Child and he is thriving educationally and socially 

with familiarity of family and friends. The court could reasonably infer that the 

300-mile distance between Luzerne County and Lexington would severely 

impinge upon Child’s quality of life. Therefore, we conclude the court properly 

determined that the denial of the relocation request was in Child’s best 

interests. Accordingly, Mother’s second and third issues are without merit.

In Mother’s fourth claim, she argues the court abused its discretion and 

erred by placing significant weight on the need for consistency in Child’s life 

as justification for denying relocation. See Appellant’s Brief, at 52. She asserts 

the court’s reliance on Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004), was 

misplaced because the statement regarding continuity and stability was taken 

from a segment of the opinion where this Court was addressing the legal 

standard for review of a request for a custody modification as opposed to a 

request for relocation. See id. Moreover, Mother states:

The trial court’s determination that continuity and stability 

trumped the advantages available to the child if the relocation was 

permitted was not supported by the record. As stated above, the 

trial court adopted Father’s position with regard to the 

appropriateness of the child’s education and his developmental 

progress. However, Father admitted that the parties had explored 

other educational facilities in order to provide the child with a more 

challenging education.

The trial court also completely disregarded the fact that the 

child has spent a considerable amount of time in the Boston area 

since 2016 and is very familiar with the area. At his young age, 
J-S34014-20

- 31 -

the child has been traveling to the Boston area longer than he has 

been enrolled in school. Additionally, the child’s extracurricular 

activities began in 2019, therefore, during the time testimony was 

taken in this case, the child was just becoming acquainted with 

those activities over Mother’s objection.

Appellant’s Brief, at 53 (footnote and citations to reproduced record omitted). 

Mother contends she met her burden and the court erred because “the 

evidence presented demonstrated the child has experienced a different 

continuity than that found by the trial court.” Id., at 54.

Initially, it merits mention that to the extent Mother argues the court 

improperly relied on Johns, a review of the trial court’s opinion reveals no 

citation to that case. Furthermore, the two cases explicitly relied on by the 

court, also do not cite Johns. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/2020, at 40.

Nevertheless, the court’s reference to the importance of continuity and 

stability in a child’s life is not misplaced. In conducting a relocation analysis, 

a court must determine the child’s best interest by considering the custody 

factors outlined in Section 5328.2 See A.V., 87 A.3d at 823. “The need for 

stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life” 

is an enumerated factor. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(4). Therefore, the court 

acted within its discretion by finding that Child’s need for stability and 

continuity was paramount when deliberating on Mother’s petition to relocate.

 

2

It merits reiterating that the court did not discuss all of the Section 5328 

factors, but Mother did not raise this issue on appeal.
J-S34014-20

- 32 -

Lastly, like her prior issues, Mother essentially argues the court erred in 

finding that continuity and stability trumped the advantages available to Child 

if the relocation was permitted and did not give proper weight to certain 

evidence that was in her favor regarding this factor. Contrary to Mother’s 

argument, we again defer to the findings of the trial court, and it was not 

required to give one factor greater weight than another. The evidence at trial 

established: (1) Mother devotes her full attention to Child when he is in her 

custody and when she is unavailable, she has made proper child-care 

arrangements to ensure stability for Child; (2) Father also provides full 

attention to Child and has an extended family for support who Child is close 

with; (3) Child is thriving educationally and socially with familiarity of friends 

and environment; (4) Child is enjoying age-appropriate activities through 

school and extracurricular activities; and (5) Child is most familiar with his 

neighborhood and is well liked in his community. If Child were to relocate to 

Massachusetts, he would be without this network that he has been surrounded 

by since birth. Therefore, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion. 

Accordingly, Mother’s argument fails.

Next, Mother argues the court abused its discretion and committed an 

error of law by disregarding the recommendation of the GAL to grant 

relocation. See Appellant’s Brief, at 54. Mother states the court “failed to 

explain why the GAL’s unbiased recommendation was not accepted” and the 
J-S34014-20

- 33 -

court’s “decision to deny the relocation [was] not supported by the evidence 

of record.” Id., at 56.

As Mother acknowledges, the recommendation of a GAL is not binding 

on the trial court. See id., at 55. Rather, a GAL’s opinion is to be considered 

advisory only. See In re Adoption of R.J.S., 889 A.2d 92, 100 n.8 (Pa. 

Super. 2005); see also C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2001).

A review of the record reveals the following. The GAL had been involved 

in the case since May of 2018. He first met Child in May of 2019. Prior to trial, 

the GAL issued a four-page report, which included a recommendation in favor 

of relocation. See Report of Sherwood P. Grabiec, Guardian Ad Litem for L.G., 

A Minor, 5/10/2019. 

Notably, during Mother’s case-in-chief at trial, the GAL testified that it 

was “very difficult” for him to make a recommendation in case but he “would 

have to give a certain amount of greater weight to the opportunities that may 

be available to [Child] in the Boston area.” N.T., 6/27/2019, at 156. 

Additionally, he stated:

I want to stress that I'm not a parenting coordinator. I’m not a 

custody evaluator. I don’t have the expertise in that field.... But 

again, I guess at the end of the day, I thought both parents were 

capable, caring. But if you have to point the finger at one or more 

factors, the opportunities probably in Boston are greater.

Id., at 156-157.
J-S34014-20

- 34 -

During Father’s case-in-chief, the GAL testified: “So at the end of the 

day, I guess I don’t have the wisdom of Solomon to say ... what will – would 

be ultimately in the best interest of [Child].” N.T., 12/23/2019, at 7.

Moreover, when asked by the court if he could provide his opinion 

regarding the best interest of Child, the GAL stated:

I haven’t seen anything to cause me great concern or 

concern that [Child] is struggling with a difficult situation. His 

parents live separately and apart.

Now, you know, he has been functioning and living in the 

Greater Boston area for a number of years. He doesn’t seem as 

though he’s in great distress over that. He’s had the ability to 

enjoy a lot of experiences with his father. I would imagine that 

would continue. Maybe modifications would have to be made.

He is by all accounts in my estimation getting by really well 

... under the current situation. I would imagine he’s going to have 

a lot of – would have a lot of great experiences, you know, maybe 

out of the Boston area.

I guess I’m hard pressed to ultimately say what’s going to 

be the preferable situation. You’ve heard from the experts who, 

you know, offered their opinions, and I wouldn’t presume to 

necessarily have that level of expertise.

Id., at 13-14.

Based on the record, it is evident that the trial court did not ignore the 

GAL’s recommendation. However, it is also clear the GAL was not firm in his 

opinion regarding the best interest of Child as to relocation. After review, we 

are satisfied that the trial court properly considered and weighed the evidence 

presented by the GAL, and committed no abuse of discretion in reaching its 

decision even though it was contrary to the GAL’s position. As noted above, 
J-S34014-20

- 35 -

the court was not bound by the GAL’s recommendation. Accordingly, Mother’s 

fifth issue is unavailing.

As for Mother’s sixth and seventh arguments, she addressed them 

together. Mother complains that the court erred and abused its discretion by 

allowing Dr. Evans-Barton to testify as an expert in the field of fatherless 

children and in recognizing the field of fatherless children as an accepted field 

of expertise. See Appellant’s Brief, at 56. She states that Dr. Evans-Barton 

“does not have any specialized expertise that relates to the current case.” Id., 

at 57. Moreover, she states:

Father presented no evidence to demonstrate that Dr. EvansBarton possessed any scientific, technical or other specialized 

knowledge with regard to relocation in child custody cases. In 

providing her purported expert testimony, Dr. Evans–Barton 

references her own personal experience and studies out there to 

form her opinions which were based on her anecdotal interactions 

with children she has counseled. She also admitted that it was not 

her research which she was relying on to form her opinion but 

rather the research of others despite her failure to cite to any of 

the research she relied on. Therefore, there was no basis for which 

the court could conclude that she possessed knowledge beyond 

that possessed by others, nor that her methodology was generally 

accepted.

Id., at 58 (citations to the reproduced record and quotation marks omitted). 

Additionally, Mother claims Dr. Evans-Barton’s experience focused on 

reuniting children with their fathers when they had been separated for 

numerous reasons and here, those circumstances do not apply because Child 

“has and will continue to have a relationship with his father.” Id., at 58.
J-S34014-20

- 36 -

When reviewing evidentiary rulings by the trial court, our standard of 

review is narrow. See Potochnick v. Perry, 861 A.2d 277, 282 (Pa. Super. 

2004). The admission of expert testimony is within the discretion of the trial 

court and should not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abuses its 

discretion. See Buttaccio v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc., 175 

A.3d 311, 315 (Pa. Super. 2017).

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 702, an expert may testify if she 

has scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, beyond that of a 

layperson, which will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to 

determine a fact in issue. See Pa.R.E. 702.

It is well established in Pennsylvania that the standard for qualification 

of an expert witness is a liberal one. See Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 664 

A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. 1995). The test to be applied when qualifying a witness “is 

whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge 

on the subject under investigation.” Id. The witness normally need only 

possess more expertise than is otherwise within the ordinary range of training, 

knowledge, intelligence or experience. See id. If she does, she may testify 

and the weight of such testimony is for the trier of fact to determine in view 

of the expert’s credentials. See id.

Regarding her credentials, Dr. Evans-Barton received her bachelor’s 

degree at the University of Michigan in chemistry, a master’s degree at Emory 
J-S34014-20

- 37 -

University in bio-chemistry cell development, and a philosophy degree at CICA 

University in theological seminary. She is an ordained minister with a 

certification in divorce and family reunification mediation, and is also a 

cognitive behavioral life coach and practitioner. She has provided an opinion 

on the study of fatherless children vis-à-vis relocation in a custody matter in 

one other occasion. See N.T., 8/23/2019, at 128-131.

Dr. Evans-Barton is the CEO of The Fatherless Generation Foundation, 

which is an organization that “specializes in reunification of fatherless children 

with their biological fathers.” Id., at 128. She has worked with over 55,000 

children who have grown up in fatherless homes from the ages of 7 to 19. Id., 

at 129. Dr. Evans-Barton testified that she has utilized the definition of a 

“fatherless child” as defined by the National Fatherhood Initiative, which has 

four factors: (1) a child who has never met the father; (2) a child who has 

limited access to the father; (3) a child whose father has died; and (4) a child 

who has a father in the home but is emotionally detached or has no 

attachment to that particular father. Id., at 128. When asked about the 

present matter, she stated Child fell under the Factor 2 definition – a child 

who had limited access to his father. Id., at 129.

Dr. Evans-Barton explained her recommendation of non-relocation 

based on her expertise by analyzing each of the Section 5337 relocation 

factors, emphasizing the stressors a child faces when his parents are not in 

close residential proximity. Id., at 132-137. 
J-S34014-20

- 38 -

We reiterate that the trial court is permitted to apply a liberal standard 

for qualification of an expert witness. See Miller, 664 A.2d at 528. Based on 

the foregoing, Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its 

discretion in permitting Dr. Evans-Barton to testify as an expert witness. 

Moreover, we note that while the trial court permitted Dr. Evans-Barton 

to testify as an expert in the field of fatherlessness, we can find no instance 

where the court explicitly relied on her testimony in its relocation 

determination. As evidenced by its March 5, 2020, opinion, the court 

summarized Dr. Evan-Barton’s testimony in its synopsis, but its analysis and 

conclusion focused on the testimony of Mother, Father, the GAL, and her 

expert witness, Dr. Lewis. See Trial Court Opinion, at 33-42. Accordingly, 

Mother’s sixth and seventh assertions fail.

Lastly, Mother sets forth a conclusory argument that based on all of her 

prior assertions, “the trial court failed to acknowledge the weight of the 

evidence favored granting [her] request for relocation when the evidence was 

applied to the factors set forth” in Section 5337(h). Appellant’s Brief, at 59.

As discussed several times above, the trial court properly addressed the 

ten relocation factors and made reasonable findings of fact based on the 

evidence presented at trial. We are bound by the findings. See A.D., 989 A.2d 

at 35-36. Accordingly, Mother’s final claim is unavailing.
J-S34014-20

- 39 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/15/2020