J-S01019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHELSIE DICIO 

Appellant

v.

RYAN DONALDSON

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1079 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered August 31, 2022,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,

Civil Division at No(s): 2021-2060.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: MARCH 3, 2023

Chelsie Dicio (Mother) appeals from the order denying her petition to 

relocate with her seven-year-old daughter A.D. (the Child) from Washington 

County, Pennsylvania to Chandlersville, Ohio. Mother argues the trial court 

erred and abused its discretion when it failed to give proper weight and 

consideration to the relocation factors set forth in the Child Custody Act. See 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(1)-(10). After review, we affirm.

The Child was born in March 2015. Mother and Richard Donaldson 

(Father) ended their relationship when Child was five years old. In March 

2021, Mother filed a custody complaint, and in June 2021, the parties agreed 

to an interim custody order. According to the interim consent order, Mother 

received primary physical custody subject to Father’s partial custody, which 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S01019-23

- 2 -

he exercised every Wednesday evening and every other weekend. Eventually, 

Father’s weekend custodial time included Monday mornings before school. 

Legal custody remained shared. Evidently, the parties’ custody case never 

resulted in a final order, but was subject to periodic reviews. During one such 

review, the parties allegedly discussed the possibility of Father receiving 

shared custody.1

In March 2022, however, Mother filed a notice of proposed relocation. 

Mother sought to relocate with the Child to Ohio, where they would live with 

Mother’s fiancé, William Howard; Mother was pregnant with Mr. Howard’s 

child. Mr. Howard lives approximately two hours and fifteen minutes away. 

Father opposed the relocation, arguing that a relocation would hinder the 

Child’s education and his ability to be a parent.

The trial court held a relocation hearing on August 22, 2022. On August 

31, 2022, the trial court denied Mother’s petition to relocate and delineated 

its findings made pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). Mother timely filed this 

appeal. She presents one issue for our review:

Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or 

error of law by failing to give proper weight and 

consideration to the statutory factors used in deciding a 

relocation request?

Mother’s Brief at 8.

____________________________________________

1 The reviews were not held on the record.
J-S01019-23

- 3 -

We begin our discussion by observing our deferential standard of 

review:

We review a trial court's determination in a custody case for 

an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. 

Because we cannot make independent factual 

determinations, we must accept the findings of the trial 

court that are supported by the evidence. We defer to the 

trial judge regarding credibility and the weight of the 

evidence. The trial judge's deductions or inferences from its 

factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may 

reject the trial court's conclusions only if they involve an 

error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual 

findings.

C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court places 

on evidence. See A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014). 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. A.V., 87 A.3d at 820. The test is whether the evidence of record 

supports the trial court’s conclusions of law. Id.

The Child Custody Act contains two sets of factors the courts must 

consider, depending on the type of action. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(1)-

(16); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(1)-(10). Section 5328(a) provides: 

“In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest 

of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration 

to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including [factors 1 

through 16.]” Id. We have held the court must conduct a Section 5328(a) 
J-S01019-23

- 4 -

analysis when a party seeks to modify the type of custody award. See A.V.,

87 A.3d at 824 n.4; see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5338 (“Modification of existing 

order.”); and see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(a) (“Award of custody.”). Although, 

when a party merely seeks modification of “a discrete custody-related issue” 

a comprehensive Section 5328(a) analysis is not always necessary. See M.O. 

v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1063 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Separately, Section 5337(h) enumerates ten factors a court must 

consider in determining whether to grant a proposed relocation, again giving 

weighted consideration to those factors which affect safety. In cases where 

one party proposed relocation while the other sought custody modification, 

we have held courts must consider both sets of custody factors. See E.D. v. 

M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 82 (Pa. Super. 2011). Similarly, when a proposed relocation 

necessarily involves the modification of the parties’ custody, courts must 

consider both sets of factors. A.V., 87 A.3d at 824-824; see also D.K. v. 

S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467, 476-477 (Pa. Super. 2014) (acknowledging several 

factors directly or implicitly overlap).

This matter only involves the trial court’s analysis of the relocation 

factors under Section 5337(h).2 The court rendered the following findings:

____________________________________________

2 We note that the trial court concluded that it did not have to analyze the 

Section 5328(a) factors. Mother did not raise the applicability of Section 

5328(a) at trial or on appeal. Thus, we do not address whether the proposed

relocation necessitated an analysis under Section 5328(a) in addition to the 

analysis under Section 5337(h).
J-S01019-23

- 5 -

(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:

(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.

Mother has been the primary caretaker of Child for most of 

her life and their relationship is strong. Mother takes A.D. 

to the playground, goes fishing, and does homework with 

the Child. Mother testified to cooking breakfast, brushing 

A.D.’s teeth, and getting the Child prepared for school. 

Mother’s fiancé, William Howard, testified to hiking and 

fishing with the Child.

After Mother and Father separated [in 2020], Father’s 

involvement was sporadic until March 2021. Father testified 

that the relationship with the Child is loving, and that A.D. 

has a bond with Father. During the past year, Father has 

become increasingly involved in A.D.’s life, including 

attending most of the Child’s soccer games, during his 

custody time and Mother’s custody, and going to the 

majority of doctor appointments. Moreover, Father testified 

that he plays, rides bikes, paints, and goes to museums with 

A.D. Father also enjoys teaching A.D. coding, math, and 

science. Father’s fiancée, Kylee Bedanics, testified that she 

has a good relationship with A.D. Ms. Bedanics reads with 

A.D. and gives the Child reading challenges during the 

summer. For these reasons, this factor is neutral.

(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.

A.D. attends the Peters Township School District and is 

entering the second grade. The minor Child is currently 

enrolled in an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). 
J-S01019-23

- 6 -

Mother testified that the school in Ohio will transfer A.D.’s 

IEP program and will accommodate the Child.

Father has concerns that a relocation will be detrimental to 

A.D. because A.D. has always attended the Peters Township 

School District. Moreover, the Child has been playing soccer 

with peers for a few years and has extended family in the 

area. Furthermore, A.D. has a relationship with Paternal 

Grandmother and Paternal Aunt. Additionally, Mother’s 

extended family, including [Maternal Grandmother, 

Maternal Step-Grandfather, Maternal Aunt and Uncles] live 

in the area. For these reasons, this factor weighs against 

relocation.

(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.

The feasibility of preserving the relationship between A.D. 

and Father would be low. Mother’s proposed relocation to 

Chandlersville, Ohio is approximately two hours and fifteen 

minutes away from Father’s residence. Father currently has 

custody on Wednesday evenings and every other weekend 

from Friday till Monday at 7:30 p.m. Mother testified that 

she believes a strong bond between Father and A.D. is 

important. Mother acknowledged that it would be more 

complicated for Father to see the Child if she were to 

relocate and that Father would not be able to do homework 

with A.D. on Wednesdays. Furthermore, Mother testified 

that she does not believe that a parenting relationship could 

be kept if Father were proposing the same relocation.

Mother also testified that she believes the parties can 

communicate and maintain a relationship between Father 

and A.D. However, both parties testified multiple times that 

the communication between the parties is not good.

Father plays an active role in A.D.’s life. He currently 

attends most of A.D.’s soccer games and practices and 

doctor appointments. If the Child were located two and a 

half hours away, it would be very difficult for Father to 

continuing attending such meaningful events in the Child’s 
J-S01019-23

- 7 -

life. Moreover, relocating would not allow Father to exercise 

the current Wednesday evening custody time, nor the 

Monday custody time that he has with A.D. Father has built 

a loving bond with A.D. that would be greatly diminished 

should the Child relocate two and a half hours away from 

Father. Father testified that he desires to work towards a 

shared custody arrangement with Mother in the future. 

Mother’s proposed relocation would make it very difficult for 

the parties to exercise 50/50 custody of A.D. For these 

reasons, this factor heavily weighs against relocation.

(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration 

the age and maturity of the child.

The Child is seven years old and did not testify; therefore, 

this factor is inapplicable.[3]

(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.

Mother testified that she has granted Father additional 

custody time on multiple occasions when he has requested. 

Mother also testified that on Mother’s Day, she had 

requested additional time and Father denied the request. 

Father testified, however, that he only denied the request 

because Mother was late for an exchange, and he had an 

event scheduled soon thereafter. Father testified that 

Mother greets A.D. with gifts at custody exchanges, 

impeding Father’s ability to say goodbye to A.D. Mother 

testified that she has brought A.D. food because A.D. was 

hungry. 

____________________________________________

3 Neither party requested that the court interview the Child to ascertain her 

preference, and thus we do not address the court’s decision to discount this 

factor. But see E.C.S. v. M.C.S., 256 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding 

the trial court abused its discretion when it denied a parent’s request that the 

court conduct an in camera interview of the children, without first ascertaining 

whether such an interview would be unnecessarily traumatic or disruptive).
J-S01019-23

- 8 -

Both parents acknowledged multiple times that [it is]

important for the Child to have a strong bond with both 

parents. Mother testified that A.D. has a good relationship 

with Father. Father testified that Mother is a good mom. 

For these reasons, this factor is neutral.

(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.

The relocation would certainly enhance the general quality 

of life of Mother. Mother’s fiancé, William Howard, owns a 

home in Chandlersville, Ohio where he resides. Mother and 

Mr. Howard are currently pregnant with their first child 

together. Mr. Howard is a state trooper for the state of Ohio 

and has a salary of approximately $100,000. Mr. Howard is 

active in his small community. Mr. Howard testified that it 

would be difficult for him to relocate to southwestern 

Pennsylvania and find employment equivalent to his current 

employment when factoring in salary, retirement benefits, 

etc.

Mother currently lives in McMurray, Pennsylvania and is 

employed as a detective analyst. Mother works remotely 

from home and has a salary of $40,000. Mother would 

continue with the same employment, working remotely, if 

relocation were granted. Mother’s extended family, 

including her mother, brothers, sister, and stepdad all live 

in Pennsylvania. For these reasons, this factor weighs 

slightly in favor of relocation.

(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.

A.D. is currently enrolled at the Peters Township School 

District and has an IEP. Moreover, A.D. has been playing 

soccer with peers for a few years. Father has also enrolled 

A.D. in guitar lessons and the Child attends regularly. 

Mother proposes that the Child attend school in Ohio. 
J-S01019-23

- 9 -

Mother testified that A.D. would have the opportunity to play 

soccer there as well.

A.D. would not benefit financially by relocating. Mother’s 

fiancé has a current salary of $100,000 and Mother has a 

current salary of approximately $40,000 totaling 

approximately $140,000. Father’s fiancée has a current 

salary of $100,000 and Father has a current salary of 

$60,000, totaling $160,000. Therefore, A.D. would not be 

enhanced financially. For these reasons, this factor weighs 

against relocation.

(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for 

seeking or opposing the relocation.

Mother has legitimate reasons for proposing to relocate with 

the Child to Ohio. Mother’s motivation for seeking relocation 

is to live with her fiancé, William Howard. Mother’s fiancé 

owns his own home with two acres of land in Chandlersville, 

Ohio. Mother is currently pregnant with her fiancé’s child. 

Mr. Howard testified that it would be difficult for him to 

relocate to Washington County, Pennsylvania and find 

employment equivalent to his current employment. Mother 

testified that she has not thought about her plans should the 

court deny her relocation.

Father has legitimate reasons to oppose Mother’s proposed 

relocation. Father opposes the relocation because he wishes 

to continue the relationship he has built with A.D. over the 

past year. Father testified that he wishes to seek more 

custody time with A.D. Moreover, Father believes that a 

relocation would hinder A.D.’s education and his ability to 

be a parent to A.D.

(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.

The parties stipulated that there has been no abuse 

committed by either party.
J-S01019-23

- 10 -

(10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of 

the child.

Not applicable.

Order and Opinion, 8/31/22, at 2-7 (not paginated) (style adjusted) (footnote 

added); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).

In the argument section of her Brief, Mother cites no relevant authority 

to support her contention that the court committed an abuse of discretion or 

error of law. Moreover, she does not exactly claim that the court’s decision 

was without support from the record. Instead, Mother lists all the reasons 

that the court could have – and should have – ruled for her. For every finding 

that the court made in Father’s favor, Mother cites an example that supports 

her position.

We do not suggest that Mother’s case for relocation was unfounded or 

unpersuasive. It is just that her reasoning has limited value as an appellate

argument. In our role, we do not “re-find facts, re-weigh evidence, and reassess credibility.” See, e.g., Wilson v. Smyers, 284 A.3d 509, 520 (Pa. 

Super. 2022). We cannot make independent factual findings but must defer 

to the weight that the trial court has chosen to afford a given factor. C.A.J., 

136 A.3d at 506. By recounting all the facts that support her position over 

Father’s, Mother seeks to “dictate the amount of weight the court places on 

evidence,” which she cannot do. See A.V., 87 A.3d at 820. In custody 

matters, the record will often support a result contrary to the trial court’s 

decision. But that does not necessarily mean the court’s decision constitutes 
J-S01019-23

- 11 -

an abuse of discretion or is otherwise erroneous. Custody decisions depend 

upon the weight afforded to a given factor, which in turn, depend upon the 

weight given to the evidence and testimony. We may not interfere with the 

court’s decision, if its consideration was careful and thorough, and if the record 

supports the trial court’s conclusions. Id.

Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion. The trial 

court was sympathetic to the fact that Mother was between the proverbial rock 

and a hard place. The court acknowledged that Mother had been the primary 

caretaker, that Father’s contact with the Child waned during the period 

between the parties’ separation and the custody litigation, and the court noted

that the Child stood to receive some benefit from the relocation. However, 

the court placed value on the fact that the Child has resided in southwestern 

Pennsylvania. Most critically, the court determined that the benefits of 

relocation were outweighed by the adverse effect that the relocation would 

have to the Father-Child relationship, and that such a change was not in the 

Child’s best interests. The critical finding was that it would not be feasible to 

preserve the same relationship he has with the Child. The court weighed this 

factor heavily. The weighing of these factors was directly in the trial court’s 

purview.4 

____________________________________________

4 The trial court recognized that the result of its decision will cause Mother and 

her fiancé logistic difficulties in raising their expected child together. However, 

merely because one parent is expecting a new child with an individual who 

lives far away, does not mean that relocation is automatically appropriate for 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S01019-23

- 12 -

Because these findings were supported by the evidentiary record, we do not 

disturb them. Therefore, we conclude Mother’s appellate issue is without 

merit.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/03/2023 

____________________________________________

the subject child. It may certainly be one factor – perhaps even a dispositive 

factor if the trial court so decides. But the factors set forth in Section 5337(h) 

are designed to assess the best interests of the subject Child, not the best 

interests of the parents. To find otherwise could encourage parents to use a 

new pregnancy as a means to thwart the relationship with the other parent. 

We clarify, however, that in this case the court did not find that Mother’s 

motivation for relocation was designed to interfere with Father’s relationship. 

The court simply determined that the sum total of the factors weighed against 

relocation.