J-S32010-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

R.E.B.

v.

B.W.B. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 177 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 

Civil Division at No(s): CI-17-09587

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 13, 2018

Appellant, B.W.B. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered December 

29, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, which granted 

primary physical custody of the parties’ children, J.W.B. (born June 2010),

and J.B. (born May 2013) (“the Children”), to Appellee, R.E.B. (“Mother”), and 

permitted Mother to relocate to Fort Worth, Texas. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history, 

in part, as follows.

On October 28, 2017, [Father] filed a Counter-Affidavit to 

[Mother’s] Notice to Relocate. Mother filed a Custody Complaint 

and a Petition for Relocation on November 2, 2017. A hearing was 

held on December 20, 2017 and a Final Custody and Relocation 

Order, granting Mother’s petition to relocate and giving Mother 

primary physical custody of the minor children, J.[W.]B. and J.B., 

was issued on December 28, 2017. Father appealed that Order on 

January 25, 2018. 
J-S32010-18

- 2 -

Mother was born and raised in Longview, Texas. N.T., 

12/20/17 at 17. Father was born and raised in Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania. Id. at 113. Both parents moved to Utah for college 

and met in August of 2004. Id. at 114. The parties married on 

December 28, 2005. Id. Upon marriage, the parties remained in 

Utah: Father continued with his education and Mother worked to 

support them. Id. In January of 2010, the parties moved to 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, so Father could accept an internship at 

Lancaster General Hospital (“LGH”). Id. at 114. Their first child, 

J.[W.]B., was born in June of 2010. Id. at 115. In December, 

2012, Father lost his job at LGH because of a sexual harassment 

allegation. Id. at 22-23. In April 2013, the parties moved back to 

Utah for Father to accept a job at the University of Utah. Id. at 

22, 114. Their second child, J.B., was born a month later in May 

2013. Id. at 115. Mother was a stay-at-home mom from 2013 to 

2014. Id. at 23. Father once again uprooted the family in June of 

2014 when he quit his job in Utah and accepted a position at Well 

Span in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Id. at 22, 114. Father worked 

at Well Span one year before he quit Well Span in August of 2015 

to pursue a master’s degree. Id. Father graduated from the 

master’s program in August of 2016 and began work at Pinnacle 

Health. Id. Father worked at Pinnacle Health for less than a year

before losing his employment. Father has held his latest job for 

two months. Id. at 24, 115.

Mother has been employed with Costco Wholesale since 

2006. Id. at 13-14. Mother is employed as a Licensed Hearing Aid 

Fitter on a limited part-time basis in which she works a two[-]day 

week, followed by a three-day week, in rotation. Id. at 11, 18. 

Mother does not receive benefits and is paid $27.25 per hour. Id.

at 19. There are no full-time employment opportunities available 

to Mother at her current Costco location. Id. at 7. The manager 

of her store testified that it is rare for a full-time position to 

become available due to the low turn-over-rate at the company 

and the long list of employees interested in a full-time position. 

Id. at 8. Full-time positions are filled on a seniority basis and 

Mother is not very senior in her current store. Id. at 10. Mother 

has been offered a full-time position at the Costco in Southlake, 

Texas, where she will maintain the same position she has now but 

on a full-time basis. Id. at 12. She will make one dollar an hour 
J-S32010-18

- 3 -

less, [i]d. at 14, based on Costco’s cost-of-living determinations. 

Id. at 33. 

Mother described her relationship with Father as emotionally 

abusive. Id. at 26. She described him as manipulating and 

controlling. Id. at 27. She said their relationship was good as long 

as she went along with what he wanted. Id. It was evident, 

through Father’s own evidence and his testimony, that Mother’s 

description was accurate. For instance, Father dug through the 

trash looking for Mother’s receipts to see where she had been, 

kept track of her whereabouts by linking her phone to his 

computer, opened mail addressed solely to her, read her personal 

journal and searched through her other personal belongings. Id.

at 45, 52, 56-58. He also admitted to his third affair in February 

of 2017. Id. at 25. Mother decided in March of 2017 to end the 

marriage. Id. at 24. In May 2017, after Father had not moved out 

as agreed to by the parties, Mother filed for divorce. Id. at 47.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/18, at 1-2 (unnumbered).

The trial court held a hearing on December 20, 2017. Both Mother and 

Father testified on their own behalf. In addition, the trial court heard testimony 

from Ron Forotini, the general manager of the Costco in Lancaster 

Pennsylvania; Michael Morris, the assistant general manager of the Costco in 

South Lake, Texas; Mother’s sister; Terry Dailey, a vocational expert;

neighbors S.S. and T.B.; and the Children’s paternal grandmother. By order 

entered December 29, 2017, the trial court permitted Mother to relocate with 

the Children to Fort Worth, Texas. 

The order granted Mother primary physical custody of the Children, and 

Father partial physical custody of the Children. The order provided Father 

partial physical custody from the first day after the end of the school year until 

the last day before the next school year begins. Further, Father has physical 
J-S32010-18

- 4 -

custody from the first day to the last day of the Thanksgiving or Christmas 

break. Father filed a timely notice of appeal as well as a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. 

We begin with Father’s challenges to the trial court’s award of primary 

physical custody to Mother. In custody cases under the Child Custody Act, 

(“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, our standard of review is as follows.

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type 

and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings 

of the trial court that 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, we must defer to the presiding trial judge 

who viewed and assessed 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.

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

[T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters 

should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature 

of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on 

the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained 

by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding 

cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed 

record. 

Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

In, we stated the following regarding an abuse of discretion standard.

[W]e are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard when 

evaluating the court’s order. An abuse of discretion is not merely 

an error of judgment, but if the court’s judgment is manifestly 

unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is 
J-S32010-18

- 5 -

abused. An abuse of discretion is also made out where it appears 

from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support 

the court’s findings or that there is a capricious disbelief of 

evidence.

M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 18-19 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (citations 

omitted).

“Our paramount concern in child custody cases is to determine the best 

interests of the child.” In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(citations omitted). “The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case 

basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s 

physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being.” Saintz v. Rinker, 

902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). 

The Act sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must 

consider. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-(16). See also J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 

A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating trial courts are required to consider 

“[a]ll of the factors listed in section 5328(a) . . . when entering a custody 

order.”)

Father’s argument regarding custody essentially sets forth the custody 

factors and simply asserts various factors that Father contends the trial court 

should have weighed differently. When considering the § 5328(a) custody 

factors, the weight the trial court assigned the evidence, as well as all the 

other factors, cannot be disturbed by this Court. See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 

73, 76 (Pa. Super. 2011). 
J-S32010-18

- 6 -

In any event, the trial court thoroughly and reasonably analyzed and 

addressed each factor under § 5328(a):

1. Neither party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the children and the 

other party. No evidence was presented that communicating with 

the children is an issue. 

2. The children are currently safe and not at risk of harm. 

2.1 Children and Youth Services has not been involved with this 

family. 

3. Although both parties perform parental duties on behalf of 

the children, as stated above, Mother is the primary caretaker 

including meals, laundry, medical appointments, church and 

school interactions. 

4. Mother provides more stability and continuity in the

children’s education and family life. She engages in homework 

and parent teacher meetings. Father is active with the children’s 

sports teams and enjoys playing with them outdoors. 

5. Father has extended family residing in the area including his 

mother, father, aunts, uncles, and his brother and brother’s 

family. Mother’s sister resides with Mother. Mother’s sister will live 

with her in Texas and she has a cousin in the area. Mother’s 

mother and father live approximately two hours away and will 

relocate to be near Mother. Father has no family in Texas. 

6. The children have no other siblings. 

7. The children did not testify due to their young age. 

8. Neither party has attempted to turn the children against the 

other party. Mother kept a calendar in her room counting down to 

this hearing which the children viewed. The parties residing 

together during this relocation and divorce negatively affects the 

children. 
J-S32010-18

- 7 -

9. Both parties maintain a loving and nurturing relationship 

with the children adequate for the children’s emotional needs. The 

younger child has a closer relationship with Mother than Father. 

10. Both parties attend to the daily needs of the children but the 

[m]other more so. 

11. The parties currently share a residence. Mother proposes to 

relocate to Fort Worth, Texas. 

12. The parties rely on each other and family to care for the 

children. 

13. There is a moderate level of conflict between the parents 

which should improve when they no longer reside together. The 

parties do not communicate. 

14. Neither Mother nor Father ha[s] a history of drug or alcohol 

abuse. 

15. Neither [p]arty has a physical or [m]ental condition 

affecting custody. 

16. On 11/6/17[,] the parties were ordered to complete the 

Focus on the Children seminar within sixty (60) days. Father did 

so; Mother has not. Within twenty-four (24) hours Mother shall 

provide to Chambers[] a copy of her registration for the seminar 

or a similar type seminar in Texas as well as a copy of her 

certificate of attendance at the seminar immediately upon 

completion. Both parents love their children very much. But for 

Father’s multiple and continued infidelities this family would be 

intact. 

Trial Court Order, 12/29/17. We may not interfere with a trial court’s 

conclusions unless they “represent a gross abuse of discretion.” Luminella v. 

Marocci, 814 A.2d 711, 716 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). That is 

simply not the case here. 
J-S32010-18

- 8 -

We next consider Father’s issues concerning relocation. The party 

proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will 

serve the best interest of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(i)(1). The trial 

court must consider the ten relocation factors set forth within § 5337(h) of 

the Act. See id., at 81-82 (“Section 5337(h) mandates that the trial court 

shall consider all of the factors listed therein, giving weighted consideration to 

those factors affecting the safety of the child.”) 

In its order, the trial court weighed the custody and relocation factors 

as follows.

1. Mother is the primary caretaker of the children. Father has 

a fun, enjoyable relationship with the children but it has been 

Mother who primarily takes care of the children’s daily needs; 

including routine and schedules, attends to their school work, and

provides emotional stability. The children have a close relationship 

with their paternal grandparents. Mother wishes to relocate to be 

closer to her extended family where she was born and raised plus 

has a better job opportunity. 

2. The children are doing well in their current school. Given 

the young ages of the children, changing schools would not be 

detrimental to their education. Also, the children have 

experienced moving in the past. The family has moved several 

times across the country to accommodate Father’s education and 

employment opportunities including twice to Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania, from Utah. Father has had four positions in 

Lancaster and recently found a job again as a medical practice 

manager. (He lost one job due to a sexual harassment allegation). 

3. The relocation would create a twenty-two [] hour[-]driving

distance between the parties. Given the distance and limited 

financial means of the parties, a relocation will reduce custody for 

Father. Both parties would need to commit to making 

communication and visitation a priority. 
J-S32010-18

- 9 -

4. The [c]ourt did not speak to the children given their young 

age. 

5. Both parties encourage the children to have a relationship 

with the other parent. 

6. The relocation would greatly enhance Mother’s life. Mother 

has been a part-time employee of eleven years for Costco, Inc. 

Mother enjoys working for the company and is valued by the 

company in return. Currently, Mother holds a part-time position 

where working an average of twenty-five (25) hours per week. If 

Mother relocates, she will be a full–time employee earning more 

income and better benefits. Father’s employment history has 

been unstable. Mother’s full-time employment will provide 

financial stability for her and the children. The relocation would 

allow Mother to return to the place she grew up. She would have 

family members and friends in the area to lend her support. Only 

Father has family in Lancaster County. The relationship between 

Mother and Father fractured due to Father’s three affairs. Mother 

has no family in the Lancaster area besides her sister who will 

relocate with her. 

7. Despite the fractured relationship of the parents, they 

continue to live in the same home as roommates. This living 

arrangement has been stressful. Mother stated the marriage only 

worked when she acquiesced to Father’s wishes. Father has 

opened and read mail addressed to Mother, tracked her 

whereabouts using her cellular phone and has read her personal 

journal. Both parents have refused to move out of the marital 

home. The current living arrangement is toxic to the children. The 

relocation will not only benefit the children by them no longer 

residing in a toxic environment but they will also benefit by having 

a Mother who is stable, healthy, and independent. 

8. Mother’s reasons for wanting to relocate are to be closer to 

her home, family, friends, and better employment opportunities. 

Father’s main objection to relocating is that he doesn’t know 

anyone in Texas. He was born and raised in Lancaster. His family 

lives here, but asking Mother to remain in Lancaster causes the 

same situation for her, which she has done twice. 
J-S32010-18

- 10 -

9. No evidence was presented that either party physically 

abuses the other or abuses the children. Both parties claim they 

have been emotionally abused by the other.

10. Father’s vocational expert did not receive communication 

from Costco regarding Mother’s work history and future job. 

There is no guarantee Mother could secure a job in the Lancaster 

area similar to the income and benefits she will receive with her 

job offer in Texas. The expert did not know what Mother’s income 

and benefits will be when Mother passes her certification in Texas 

versus her present situation. Father has an unstable work history 

and could end up relocating again to find work[,] however Father’s 

expert did not address these issues. 

Father participates in outside activities with the children while 

Mother does inside activities with the children. Mother is the 

disciplinarian and provides more structure and nurture. 

Trial Court Order, 12/29/2017.

And in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court further explained:

The [c]ourt considered the ten relocation factors in reaching its 

decision per 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5337. ... The [c]ourt found Mother to 

be a credible witness. Father less so. For instance, Father testified 

that maternal grandfather never came to visit them in 

Pennsylvania but later indicated that maternal grandfather had 

visited twice. [N.T., 12/20/17] at 125. Father testified that Mother 

never expressed an interest in moving back to Texas, yet he 

applied for a job in Texas upon completion of his undergraduate 

degree, [i]d. at 142, which leads the [c]ourt to believe that a 

move had been considered. 

Mother’s life would improve with her move to Texas. She would 

benefit financially by her new position in Texas. Mother is currently 

working on average twenty-five (25) hours a week. Id. at 18. 

Mother’s current hourly rate is twenty-seven dollars and fifty cents 

($27.50) an hour and grossing approximately six hundred eightyseven dollars and fifty cents ($687.50) a week. Id. at 19. 

Mother’s position upon relocation pays twenty-six dollars and fifty 

cents ($26.50) an hour for forty (40) hour per week. Id. at 9, 33. 

Mother’s gross weekly salary upon relocation is one thousand sixty 
J-S32010-18

- 11 -

dollars ($1060). Mother will therefore be grossing three hundred 

and seventy-two dollars and fifty cents ($372.50) more a week, 

which means a yearly increase of nineteen thousand three 

hundred and seventy dollars ($19,370). This is clearly a financial 

benefit. Additionally, she will be able to continue with the same 

employer she has worked for since 2006, working in a job she 

enjoys. In Texas, she will be promoted to a full-time position 

including benefits. Id. at 63. This will greatly increase Mother’s 

quality of life. Mother will be receiving other benefits such as 

health insurance[,] which is an added benefit to Mother and the 

children given how frequently Father changes jobs. 

Father presented a vocational expert who claimed that the area 

Mother is moving to has a higher cost-of-living. Id. at 87. 

However, Mother testified that the reason she is being paid one 

dollar less per hour by Costco is because that area has a lower 

cost-of-living. Id. at 33. Mother testified that passing her hearing 

aid fitters exam was not a concern. Id. The [c]ourt believes 

Mother’s assessment and Father presented no evidence to sway 

the [c]ourt otherwise. The [v]ocational expert also testified that 

Mother could find a comparable position locally to the one she was 

offered in Texas. The [c]ourt was not persuaded by the vocational 

expert who presented a generic listing of jobs without any 

specifics as to the duties, hours and benefits of those jobs nor any 

testimony specific to Mother being able to obtain those jobs. Id.

at 85. Also, the expert’s credibility was lessened when the expert 

never spoke to Mother’s current employer, never spoke to anyone 

in the Texas store about Mother’s new position, nor did she do any 

analysis of Mother’s earnings once she becomes licensed in Texas 

and obtains her expected hourly wage. Id. at 92, 94. 

Mother’s life would improve with her move to Texas because she 

would benefit emotionally. Mother was credible when she 

described her relationship with Father was good as long as she 

went along with everything Father wanted. Id. at 27. She testified 

that Father was manipulative and controlling. Id. Mother not only 

testified to this[,] but Father admitted to controlling and 

manipulative behavior[,] but did not/could not acknowledge that 

behavior as a problem. He admitted he tracked Mother’s 

whereabouts by her phone, “but not that often”. Id. at 144. He 

admitted he read her personal journal. Id. at 143. He presented 

her mail, that he had opened, on cross examination of the 
J-S32010-18

- 12 -

[m]other. Id. at 52. After Father’s third affair and dissolution of 

the marriage, Mother needed to relocate for family and full-time 

employment. Id. at 38. Mother’s only support is her sister who 

moved in with Mother two months ago but would move to Texas 

to reside with Mother and the boys. Mother is able to reconnect 

with family and friends and receive support in Texas. Mother has 

a very close relationship with her sister and parents. All were 

present at the courthouse the day of the hearing. Her sister put 

her life on hold to come to Lancaster to give Mother support as 

her marriage dissolves. Id. at 75. Sister plans on obtaining 

employment around Mother’s schedule to help with childcare. Id.

at 72. The [c]ourt does not believe the 1 1/2-2 hour distance 

between Mother and maternal grandparents will be a barrier, plus 

maternal grandparents will move closer to Mother. Id. at 64. 

In addition to Mother’s life improving, the children’s lives will also 

improve. Besides the benefit to having a happy, healthy, 

independent mother, the children will also derive their own direct 

benefits from the move. Both parents testified that the public 

school the children are assigned to is not adequate to meet the 

parents’ educational expectations. Id. at 28, 119. The parents 

currently have the children enrolled in a local nonpublic school. 

Both parents testified that this is a financial strain for them and 

have been in conversations with the school about their inability to 

pay. Id. at 29, 55, 138-139. If an agreement [on] tuition is not 

reached, the children will need to attend the public school that the 

parents have jointly decided is not in the children’s best interest. 

Upon relocation, the children will be enrolled in a highly regarded 

public school which has many enrichment and afterschool 

activities at no cost to the parents. Id. at 36. 

Adequate substitute partial custody arrangements could be made 

to preserve the relationship between Father and the children when 

granting relocation. Father will have the children all summer[,]

which coincides with Father enjoying outside activities with the 

boys. Id. at 96. Also, Mother is very supportive and encouraging 

of the boys’ relationship with their Father. Id. at 40. Furthermore, 

Mother credibly testified that the eldest child has taken on an 

emotional caretaker role of Father because of Father’s grief over 

the breakup of the marriage. Id. at 67. The eldest child needs to 

be a child[,] not ... Father’s counselor. 
J-S32010-18

- 13 -

The [c]ourt found Mother more credible when she testified that 

she was the primary caretaker of the children. Mother testified 

that Father was not around much prior to the separation. Id. at 

42. Since the separation, Father has begun to do more for the 

boys, however[,] Mother primarily takes care of the children’s 

daily needs, including routines and schedules, attends to their 

school work, provides emotional[] stability, cooks their meals, 

prepares them for school in the morning, attends their 

parent/teacher conferences, washes the laundry, handles their 

medical appointments, and attends to their church and school 

activities. Id. at 30. Father[] also plays basketball up to three 

nights a week. Id. at 118. The [c]ourt did not find the testimony 

of the two neighbors persuasive as they never saw any 

interactions between Mother and the children as opposed to 

seeing Father play with the children outside. Id. at 96, 102. 

Father argued Mother’s real motive to move was a relationship 

with a gentleman in Texas. Father, after invading Mother’s privacy 

and reading, copying and disseminating her private writings, 

decided that she was pursuing a relationship in Texas. Mother was 

believable when she emphatically denied being in a relationship 

with anyone in Texas. Id. at 58. The gentleman Father mentioned 

is a childhood friend who is presently engaged to marry someone 

else. Mother’s most credible statement was when she testified, 

“Now, I’ll tell you right now, I am not moving to Texas for a guy. 

I have moved across the country three times for a guy, and I will 

never do it again.” Id. Mother met her burden of proving the need 

for her to relocate and her relocation is in the best interests of the 

children. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/18 (unnumbered 2-5).

Father’s eight issues concerning relocation overlap. At their core, the 

issues dispute the trial court’s findings of fact and determinations regarding 

credibility and weight of the evidence. Under the aforementioned standard of 

review applicable in custody matters, the trial court’s findings of fact and 

determinations regarding credibility and weight of the evidence are not 
J-S32010-18

- 14 -

disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. As we stated in King v. King, 889 

A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005):

It is not this Court’s function to determine whether the trial court 

reached the ‘right’ decision; rather, we must consider whether, 

‘based on the evidence presented, giv[ing] due deference to the 

trial court’s weight and credibility determinations,’ the trial court 

erred or abused its discretion. . . .

(quoting Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129 (Pa. Super. 2005)). 

We briefly explain why Father’s issue have no merit. Father takes issue 

with the trial court’s assertion Father lost one of his jobs due to sexual 

harassment, arguing, “there is no evidence of Father losing his job because of 

sexual harassment.” Father’s Brief, at 51. However, Mother testified, “I know 

what [Father] told me. There was a sexual harassment filed -- case filed 

against him.” N.T., 12/20/17, at 23. 

Father also asserts that the trial court improperly found Mother would 

benefit financially from the move to Texas, asserting there “was no 

comparison to Mother’s actual earnings in Lancaster to her proposed earnings 

in a fulltime position in Texas...” Father’s Brief, at 32. He also asserts that the 

trial court erred because his vocational expert testified that Forth Worth, Texas 

has a higher cost of living than Lancaster and that the benefit would be offset 

by the cost of travel. 

Mother testified that she began looking to relocate to Texas when Father 

lost his job at Pinnacle because she did not believe Father was stable. See 

N.T., 12/20/17, at 47-48. Mother located a position at Costco in Texas that 
J-S32010-18

- 15 -

would offer full-time employment. There is no full-time position available in 

the Lancaster store. See id., at 7. Initially, Mother would earn $23.25 an hour 

but she would earn $26.25 an hour after receiving her Texas license. See id.,

at 33. Costco pays less because of the cost of living in Texas. See id. Mother 

will work forty hours per week, and the job includes benefits. See id. at 63. 

In Pennsylvania, Mother earned $27.25 an hour for part-time work. See id.

at 19. Because she was “limited part-time,” she worked 40 hours every two 

weeks, although she had opportunities to pick up additional time. Id., at 18-

19. The trial court credited this testimony to conclude that Mother would 

experience a substantial economic benefit from the move to Texas.

Father argues that the trial court committed an error of law and an 

abuse of discretion by placing the burden of proof on Father to establish his 

potential earnings in Fort Worth, Texas. Father also asserts that the trial court 

did not find his vocational expert credible because she did not perform an 

assessment of Father’s earning capacity in Texas. 

The trial court’s order states:

10. Father’s vocational expert did not receive communication 

from Costco regarding Mother’s work history and future job. 

There is no guarantee Mother could secure a job in the Lancaster 

area similar to the income and benefits she will receive with her 

job offer in Texas. The expert did not know what Mother’s income 

and benefits will be when Mother passes her certification in Texas 

versus her present situation. Father has an unstable work history 

and could end up relocating again to find work[;] however[,]

Father’s expert did not address these issues. 

Trial Court Order, 12/29/17 (unnumbered at 3).
J-S32010-18

- 16 -

Contrary to Father’s argument, the trial court did not place the burden 

on Father to prove his earning capacity in Texas. Rather, the trial court faulted 

Father’s vocational expert for failing to communicate with Costco, and for 

failing to determine Mother’s income and benefits in Texas. The trial court did 

not fault his expert for failing to determine Father’s income potential in Texas. 

Father asserts the trial court erred by concluding Mother would have 

more family support in Texas. However, Mother testified that her sister will 

move with her to Forth Worth, and her parents live 175 miles away and are 

willing to move to Dallas/Fort Worth to assist her. See N.T., 12/20/17, at 64. 

Further, Mother’s cousin lives in the area. Mother has no family in 

Pennsylvania. See id., at 38.

Father also claims that the trial court failed to give “sufficient weight” to 

Mother’s purported romantic interest in a “male friend” in Texas. Father’s 

Brief, at 49. Father relies on portions of Mother’s journal that Father 

discovered when he moved her lunchbox from the stove. He testified that it 

felt heavier so he opened it, discovered Mother’s journal, and found “pages of 

her communication and contact with this gentleman.” N.T., 12/20/17, at 143. 

The journal includes dates and three entries that Father asserts show Mother 

wishes to relocate because of this romantic interest. See id., Defendant’s 

Exhibit 7. Father’s counsel used the journal entries to cross-examine Mother, 

who testified that the man is a family friend she met when she was 14 years 

old who is engaged to someone else. See id., at 58. Mother testified, “[n]ow, 
J-S32010-18

- 17 -

I’ll tell you right now, I am not moving to Texas for a guy. I have moved 

across the country three times for a guy, and I will never do it again. And no, 

I’m not in a relationship with him.” Id. at 58-59. The trial court found Mother’s 

testimony believable. 

Father similarly assails the trial court’s findings regarding the respective 

schools in Lancaster and Fort Worth, the trial court’s determinations regarding 

who provided care for the Children, who took the Children to church and 

activities, as well as its conclusions regarding the availability of alternate 

arrangements for custody, the weight to be given to the Children’s need for 

stability and continuity, and the impact the relocation would have on the 

Children. Father, in essence, questions the trial court’s conclusions and 

assessments and seeks this Court to re-find facts, re-weigh evidence, and/or 

re-assess credibility to his view of the evidence. This, as we explained, we 

cannot do. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/13/18