J-A06027-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

J.G., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

J.G.,

Appellee No. 2743 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order July 27, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2012-18650

BEFORE: PANELLA, SHOGAN, and RANSOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 22, 2017

This is an appeal in a custody case by J.G. (“Mother”). She and J.G. 

(“Father”) had four children.1 Mother appealed the order denying her 

request to relocate with the parties’ youngest child, nine-year-old A.G., to 

Boca Raton, Florida. The July 27, 2016 order also denied 1) Mother’s 

petition to modify the existing custody order, and 2) her separate petition 

for special relief requesting that A.G. be immediately withdrawn from his 

present Hebrew school and enrolled in a different one mutually agreed upon 

____________________________________________

1

 Of the parties’ three oldest children, two daughters were ages thirty-one 

and twenty-four years old in 2015; the second-oldest child, who would have 

been twenty-nine years old, was tragically killed by a drunk driver when she 

was nineteen years old in 2005. N.T., 2/17/16, at 24; Custody Evaluation 

by Anthony M. Pisa, Ph.D., 12/29/15, Mother’s Exhibit 1 (“Pisa Report”), at 

3, 13–14.
J-A06027-17

- 2 -

by the parties. Finally, the order denied Father’s petition to modify the 

existing custody order in which he requested equally shared physical 

custody; however, the trial court granted Father’s alternative request to 

increase his partial physical-custody time. Upon careful review, we affirm.

The record reveals that Mother and Father separated in 2012 after 

thirty-three years of marriage. N.T., 2/18/16, at 5. Mother testified that 

after the parties’ daughter died in July of 2005, the parties planned to have 

“another child to make us feel whole again.” Id. at 7, 11. A.G. was born 

seventeen months later in October of 2007. Id. at 5, 10. The parties 

separated in April of 2012, and a divorce decree was issued in December of 

2014. Id. at 5–6.

The parties stipulated to the existing custody order dated January 13, 

2014. It granted them shared legal custody, Mother primary physical 

custody, and Father partial physical custody every Wednesday overnight 

during the school year. In addition, the order granted Father physical 

custody on alternating weekends from “Friday after school through Sunday 

at 8:00 p.m. and on the next alternating weekend . . . from Friday after 

school through Monday morning return to school, or if there is no school, to 

Mother’s home by 9:00 a.m.” Order, 1/13/2014, at ¶ 2(b).

Father resides in the former marital home in Wynnewood, 

Pennsylvania, with his girlfriend, Stefanie Cutler. Pisa Report at 3. Mother 

resides in an apartment in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Id. A.G. attends 
J-A06027-17

- 3 -

school in the Lower Merion School District, and he has an Individualized 

Education Plan (“IEP”) due primarily to reading difficulties. N.T., 6/14/16, at 

242–243. In addition, A.G. is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder 

(“ADD”) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Pisa Report at 

9. Father testified that A.G. was recently prescribed Ritalin, which has made 

him more calm and focused. N.T., 6/14/16, at 240–241.

On April 23, 2015, Mother filed a notice of proposed relocation with 

A.G. to Boca Raton, Florida. Father responded on April 27, 2015, with a 

counter-affidavit objecting to the relocation and to modification of the 

existing custody order. On July 6, 2015, Mother filed a petition to modify 

the existing custody order, wherein she requested modification of Father’s 

partial physical custody schedule and permission to relocate with A.G. to 

Florida. On July 16, 2015, Father filed a petition to modify the existing 

custody order, wherein he requested joint physical custody.2 Finally, on 

August 25, 2015, Mother filed a petition for special relief, asking that A.G. be 

withdrawn from Hebrew school at Temple Beth Hillel and enrolled in a new 

____________________________________________

2

 “Joint physical custody” is not a term included in the Child Custody Act 

(“Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5321–5340, which governs this custody matter. 

Rather, the Act includes the term “shared physical custody,” which is defined 

as “the right of more than one individual to assume physical custody of the 

child, each having significant periods of physical custodial time with the 

child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5322. During these proceedings, Father requested 

equally shared physical custody.
J-A06027-17

- 4 -

Hebrew school mutually agreed upon by the parties. Petition for Special 

Relief, 8/25/15, at 1–2.

The trial court held a protracted custody hearing over five days, on 

February 17–19, and June 14–15, 2016. Mother testified on her own behalf, 

and she presented the testimony of Anthony M. Pisa, Ph.D., a clinical 

psychologist appointed to perform a custody evaluation upon agreement of 

the parties; Robert Tanenbaum, a licensed psychologist; Maria Vetter, an 

expert in special education consultations; and Laurie Dubow, Mother’s friend 

who owns a real estate company in Florida, who testified via telephone. 

Father testified on his own behalf, and he presented the testimony of J.S.G., 

the paternal grandmother; Sharon Grevet, Mother’s sister, via telephone; 

and J.E.G. and F.L.G., the parties’ adult daughters, via telephone. On 

rebuttal, Mother testified again on her behalf and presented the testimony of 

her friend, Farell Borine.

By order dated July 26, 2016, and filed on July 27, 2016, the trial 

court denied Mother’s request to relocate with A.G. and her petition to 

modify the existing custody order. Further, the court denied Mother’s 

petition for special relief, wherein she requested A.G.’s withdrawal from his 

current Hebrew school and enrollment in a different one. The court denied 

Father’s request for equally shared physical custody but granted him 

additional physical custody overnight on the Thursday evenings preceding 

Mother’s custodial weekends. The court directed that the “January 13, 2014 
J-A06027-17

- 5 -

stipulated custody order shall remain in full force and effect to the extent 

that it does not conflict with this Order.” Order, 7/26/16, at 4.

Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). 

The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 18, 2016, wherein it 

addressed each error asserted by Mother in her concise statement. On 

appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the [c]ourt erred by failure to individually address 

the sixteen (16) custody factors and ten (10) relocation factors 

when issuing its Order?

2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in concluding that AppelleeFather should be awarded additional physical custody?

3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody order 

based upon an improper conclusion that Appellee-Father spent 

“meaningful time together with the child on Wednesday?[”] 

4. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in failing to give the 

appropriate weight to the fact that Appellee-Father repeatedly 

stated that if he were permitted substantially similar time with 

the child he would consent to the relocation to Florida?

5. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in failing to place appropriate 

weight on the fact that Appellee-Father testified that he 

considered [Appellant-]Mother’s proposal to stop support 

payments if she were able to relocate with the child, and that 

the main reason he declined was because he was concerned 

about what his other children might think of him?

6. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody order 

based upon an improper conclusion that the child has a close 

relationship with his two adult sisters, as this conclusion is in 

direct contradiction to the wealth of evidence and testimony 

presented to the contrary?
J-A06027-17

- 6 -

7. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by in [sic] fashioning a 

custody order based upon an improper conclusion that the child 

had developed a close relationship with Paternal Grandparents, 

Aunts, Uncles, and cousins?

8. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody order 

based upon an improper conclusion that the child would not have 

similar family relationships or a similar support system in 

Florida?

9. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody order 

based upon an improper finding that “there was no persuasive 

evidence presented at the hearing that the quality of the child’s 

education would improve, or remain consistent for that matter, if 

the child relocates to Florida,” which is contrary to all the 

evidence and testimony presented, specifically the education 

expert presented by Appellant-Mother?

10. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody 

order based upon an improper conclusion that there was “no 

persuasive evidence that the relocation would enhance the 

general quality of life for the child financially or emotionally?”

11. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in fashioning a custody 

order based upon improperly speculating that Appellant-Mother 

may not be willing to promote the child’s relationship with 

Appellee-Father if the child were permitted to relocate?

12. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in applying and adopting 

Dr. Anthony Pisa’s conclusion that if the child were to relocate to 

Florida, “in his opinion the child’s loss from being separated from 

Father and Father’s extended family would outweigh any benefit 

gained by Mother in relocating?”

13. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in failing to consider the 

uncontroverted and well-reasoned preference of the child, which 

was to be able to relocate with Appellant-Mother?

14. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in failing to adjudicate the 

underlying issues outlined in the Petition for Special Relief?

Mother’s Brief at 3–4.
J-A06027-17

- 7 -

In custody cases under the Child Custody Act, (“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 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.

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

omitted). This Court “will accept the trial court’s conclusion unless it is 

tantamount to legal error or unreasonable in light of the factual findings.” 

M.G. v. L.D., ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2017 PA Super 29, *5 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(citing S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

Further, we have stated the following:

[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) (quoting 

Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

The primary concern in any custody case is the best interests of the 

child. “The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, 
J-A06027-17

- 8 -

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), (citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 

674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

Section 5328(a) of the Act sets forth the best interest factors that the 

trial court must consider when awarding custody. E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 

80–81, n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). Those factors are as follows:

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.—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 the following:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the child and 

another party.

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

member of the party’s household, whether there is a 

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

which party can better provide adequate physical 

safeguards and supervision of the child. 

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and 

(2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and 

involvement with protective services). 

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf 

of the child. 

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s 

education, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.
J-A06027-17

- 9 -

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on 

the child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the 

other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where 

reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the 

child from harm.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, 

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child 

adequate for the child’s emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily 

physical, emotional, developmental, educational and 

special needs of the child.

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

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability 

to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the 

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one 

another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by 

another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability 

to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or 

member of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or 

member of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).

Section 5337(h) of the Act sets forth the following ten relocation 

factors that a trial court must consider when ruling on a relocation petition:
J-A06027-17

- 10 -

(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.

(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.
J-A06027-17

- 11 -

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

child.

23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). “As the custodial parent seeking to relocate . . . , 

Mother had the burden of establishing that relocation is in her son’s best 

interest.” See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(i) (“Burden of proof.—(1) The party 

proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation 

will serve the best interest of the child as shown under the factors set forth 

in subsection (h).”). D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566, 573 (Pa. Super. 

2016), appeal denied, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 6462545 (Pa. filed November 

1, 2016). In addition, “[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. § 5337(i)(2).

Turning to the first issue on appeal, Mother asserts that the trial court 

erred by failing to address individually the Section 5328(a) custody factors 

and the Section 5337(h) relocation factors when issuing the subject order. 

This issue is waived. Mother fails to support her two-sentence contention, 

completely lacking in specificity, with any authority. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); 

Banfield v. Cortes, 110 A.3d 155, 168 n.11 (Pa. 2015) (“Where an 

appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to 

relevant authority or fails to develop the issue, . . . that claim is waived. It 

is not the obligation of an appellate court to formulate an appellant’s 

arguments for him. Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 

2014).” See also In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330, 339 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) 
J-A06027-17

- 12 -

(stating that issues are waived if appellate brief fails to provide meaningful 

discussion with citation to relevant authority).

Even if not waived, we would conclude the claim is without merit. In 

its order, the trial court stated that it “considered the custody factors as set 

forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1) through (a)(16), as well as the relocation 

factors as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(1) through (h)(10) and weighed 

these factors with the evidence presented. . . .” Order, 7/26/16, at 1. 

Thereafter, the court delineated the reasons for its custody and relocation 

decisions. Id. at 2-4. As such, we discern no legal error by the trial court.

Similarly, with respect to the fifth issue, we conclude that Mother’s 

one-sentence claim is waived for her failure to provide meaningful discussion 

with citation to relevant legal authority. Banfield, 110 A.3d at 168 n.11; In 

re W.H., 25 A.3d at 339 n.3. Even if not waived, we would discern no 

abuse of discretion. The trial court addressed the issue at length, in contrast 

to Mother’s brevity. Further, we would adopt as dispositive of Mother’s fifth 

issue the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion. Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, 

at 15–16.

In delineating the reasons for its custody and relocation decisions, the 

trial court set forth its factual findings and made determinations regarding 

credibility and weight of the evidence. Order, 7/26/16, at 2–4. In addition, 

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court set forth its factual findings, which 
J-A06027-17

- 13 -

are supported by the testimonial evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, at 

1–4.

Importantly, the trial court found credible the testimony and opinion of 

the custody evaluator, Dr. Pisa, who was appointed by agreement of the 

parties. The court admitted into evidence Dr. Pisa’s thorough and 

comprehensive custody evaluation report. Pisa Report, 12/29/15, at 1–75. 

Dr. Pisa opined, “[T]he child’s ‘loss’ from being separated from Father and 

Father’s extended family would outweigh any benefit gained by Mother in 

relocating.” Order, 7/26/16, at 3. The trial court explained as follows:

Dr. Pisa testified that . . . Mother’s negative behavior 

towards . . . Father thwarts the child’s relationship with . . . 

Father, and that it could have a very negative psychological 

impact on the child. If . . . Mother were permitted to relocate to 

Florida, Dr. Pisa supported the contention that . . . Mother will 

have even more of an opportunity to thwart . . . Father’s 

relationship with the child.

Dr. Pisa’s December 29, 2015 final report . . . states that 

[he] does not recommend that the child relocate to Florida. Dr. 

Pisa states that “. . . the benefits derived by Mother as a result 

of the move would have to be weighed against the losses 

incurred by the child by being displaced from Father and Father’s 

extended family . . . the child would continue to derive benefit 

from being exposed to Father particularly as he grows older . . . 

if the child were to stay in Philadelphia, he would have the 

benefit of two caring parents. . . .

Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, at 3–4 (citations to record omitted); see also

N.T., 2/17/16, at 122 (“[I]t’s my opinion within a reasonable degree of 

psychological certainty that [A.G.’s] loss about being separated from 

[F]ather in a way that would divorce [Father] from participation in [A.G.’s] 
J-A06027-17

- 14 -

normal developmental experience and [F]ather’s extended family are losses 

that . . . outweigh the benefit to [M]other if she were to move . . . .”).

In this appeal, but for her second and fourteenth issues, Mother 

asserts that the trial court erred in denying her proposed relocation, claiming 

that the testimonial evidence does not support the trial court’s factual 

findings, or the trial court improperly weighed the testimonial evidence. We 

have thoroughly reviewed the testimony, and we disagree.

Indeed, with respect to all of the foregoing issues wherein Mother 

asserts that the trial court erred in denying her proposed relocation with 

A.G. to Boca Raton, Florida, we conclude the testimonial evidence 

overwhelmingly supports the court’s factual findings, and its conclusions are 

reasonable in light of those findings. Thus, we discern no abuse of 

discretion. Further, because this Court must defer to the determinations of 

the trial judge with respect to the weight of the evidence, Mother’s issues in 

that regard also fail. C.R.F., 45 A.3d at 441. Accordingly, we adopt as 

dispositive of Mother’s third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, 

eleventh, twelfth, and thirteen issues on appeal, the trial court’s Rule 

1925(a) opinion. Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, at 11–29.3

In Mother’s second issue, she argues that the trial court erred in 

granting Father additional physical custody overnight on the Thursdays 

____________________________________________

3

 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of 

further proceedings in this matter.
J-A06027-17

- 15 -

preceding Mother’s custodial weekends. Specifically, Mother contends that 

the court “failed to give proper weight to the fact that Father consistently 

failed to exercise custodial time provided to him by the” existing custody 

order and failed to exercise extra custodial time Mother offered him. 

Mother’s brief at 11. In addition, Mother avers, “Father had a history of 

passing off his parental duties to [her]. . . .” Id. at 12. We disagree.

The trial court acknowledged that “Father does not always take 

advantage of the time when the child is available to him.” Order, 7/26/16, 

at 4. Further, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court referenced Dr. 

Pisa’s statement in his report that he “would not recommend consideration 

of an equally shared [physical custody] arrangement until Father 

demonstrates over time that he takes advantage of all the time the child is 

available to him.” Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, at 12 (citation to record 

omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, the trial court found that equally 

shared physical custody “may be too great a change in the child’s routine 

and schedule at this time. . . .” Id. at 12-13. Thus, the trial court denied 

Father’s request for equally shared physical custody.

Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that it would be in A.G.’s best 

interest to modify Father’s partial physical custody schedule by granting 

Father “two additional overnights . . . per month.” Trial Court Opinion, 

10/18/16, at 12. The court explained that it granted Father’s alternative 

request for overnights on the Thursday evenings preceding Mother’s 
J-A06027-17

- 16 -

custodial weekends “based on the evidence presented that [Appellee] Father 

and the child share a close relationship and that [Appellee] Father is able to 

care for the child.” Id. at 13. Upon thorough review of the testimonial 

evidence, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in modifying 

the existing custody order by granting Father extra overnights on the 

Thursdays that precede Mother’s custodial weekends. Therefore, Mother’s 

second issue fails.

In her fourteenth and final issue, Mother asserts that the trial court 

erred in failing to adjudicate the underlying issues in her petition for special 

relief. Specifically, Mother claims the trial court failed to enter an order with 

respect to “which Synagogue the child should attend services and Hebrew 

School.” Mother’s brief at 22. Mother’s issue is meritless.

Contrary to Mother’s assertion, the trial court stated in its Rule 

1925(a) opinion that it adjudicated the underlying issues by denying her 

petition for special relief. Trial Court Opinion, 10/18/16, at 17. Indeed, in 

her petition, Mother requested that A.G. be immediately withdrawn from 

Hebrew school at Temple Beth Hillel and enrolled in a new Hebrew school 

mutually agreed upon by the parties. By denying Mother’s petition, the 

court declined to order that A.G. be withdrawn from his current Hebrew 

school. Upon careful review of the totality of the testimonial evidence in this 

case, we discern no abuse of discretion by the court in denying Mother’s 

petition. Therefore, we reject Mother’s final issue.
J-A06027-17

- 17 -

Upon review, we conclude that the trial court carefully and thoroughly 

considered A.G.’s best interests in its custody determinations. Because the 

competent evidence of record supports the trial court’s findings, and the trial 

court’s conclusions are reasonable in light of those findings, we affirm the 

order denying Mother’s request to relocate with A.G. to Boca Raton, Florida, 

her petition to modify the existing custody order, and her petition for special 

relief. In addition, we affirm the custody order modifying Father’s partial 

physical custody schedule granting him additional overnights on the 

Thursdays preceding Mother’s custodial weekends.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/22/2017
1 

1111 ri:11'~~1:l~DII II 

2012-18650-0078 \011812016 3:36 PM # 11004393 

Opinion 

Rcpt#Z2908132 F~:so.oo 

II.far\; U\: - MontCo Prothonotary 

Philadelphia area since his birth. --·- --·- ... - . -- - -·- - ------ - . 

every Wednesday overnight during the school year. The child has lived in the 

Defendant Father has partial physical custody of the child every other weekend and 

Pursuant to a January 13, 2014 agreed custody order, the parents share legal 

custody of the child, Plaintiff Mother has primary physical' custody of the child, and 

Esquire, and Defendant Father was represented by Cheryl Young, Esquire, 

Relief. Plaintiff Mother was represented by Maria Testa, Esquire and Richard Bost, 

Existing Custody Order, and Plaintiff Mother's August 25, 2015 Petition for Special 

Affidavit Regarding Relocation, Plaintiff Mother's July 6, 2015 Petition to Modify an 

15, 2016, the court held hearings on Defendant Father's April 27, 2015 Counterparents of one unemancipated child, A.G. (date of birth October& 

2007)(hereinafter "the child"). On February 17, 18 and 19, 2016, and June 14 and 

Defendant/Appellee •••••• ("hereinafter "Defendant Father") are the 

Plaintiff/Appellant••••• (hereinafter "Plaintiff Mother") and 

COONAHAN, J. OCTOBER 18, 2016 

OPINION 

Jiii G---"° 

SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. 

2743 EDA 2016 

vs 

J._ ~·III NO. 12-18650 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

Circulated 05/01/2017 11:30 AM
2 

Defendant Father testified at the hearings that he has a close relationship with 

the child. Defendant Father testified to the daily routine which he and the child 

follow in regard to meals, homework, and bedtime. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 281-283, 

287, 289-290. Defendant Father takes the child to Hebrew School and shares other 

activities with the child such as basketball, soccer, museums, water parks, and play . 

gyms. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 294-295. Defendant Father stated that the child also 

has playdates with other children during Defendant Father's custodial weekends. 

N.T. June 14, 2016 at 298. 

There was testimony presented that the child spends time with his paternal 

grandparents, his paternal aunt and uncle, and his cousins, at Hebrew school, and 

on the weekends when he is with Defendant Father, and that he has a close 

relattonshlp with his extended family. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 283-284, 296, N.T. 

June 15, 2016 at 43-44. The child also has a close relationship with Defendant 

Father's flancee, Stefanie Cutler. N.T. June 15, 2016 at 80. 

Plaintiff Mother testified that she wished to relocate to Florida because she states 

she has a support system in Florida, she wanted to live closer to her mother, who 

resided in Florida, and that the weather in Florida would be better for an injury she 

sustained to her hand. Plaintiff Mother also testified that she would be working as a 

part time relator's assistant in Florida. However, since Plaintiff Mother filed her 

Notice of Relocation on April 23, 2015, her mother has passed away. Furthermore, 

her mother's residence was six hours away from where Plaintiff Mother planned to 

relocate in Florida. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 51, 52. There was also testimony that 

since her mother moved to Florida in 2012, Plaintiff Mother only visited her four 

times until her death in January, 2016. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 159. 
3 

Plaintiff Mother stated that her support system in Florida was comprised of her 

cousin, Randy Levlne, a friend named Laurie Dubow, and the directors of a summer 

camp which her older children attended. However, there was testimony presented 

that Plaintiff Mother's relationship with her cousin and Ms. Dubow is not close, and 

Plaintiff Mother's contact with the operators of the summer camp, "Isaac and Rose" 

was limited to once a year prior to the custody litigation. N.T. February 19, 2016 at 

71; N.T. June 14, 2016 at 63, 87, 88, 186, 218, 235. 

Plaintiff Mother testified that she intended to work as a real estate agent's 

assistant in Florida with the intention of becoming a part-time real estate agent. 

However, Plaintiff Mother does not have either a Pennsylvania or Florida real estate 

license. N.T. June 14, -2016 at 115. Plaintiff Mother offered no persuasive evidence 

that she sought a similar position in Pennsylvania, or that she attempted to find any 

job in Pennsylvania for that matter. N.T. June 14, 2016 64-66, 115, 124. 

Plaintiff Mother did not present any persuasive evidence to the. court that her 

hand injury prohibits her from remaining in Pennsylvania or that Florida would 

somehow alleviate her injury. There was testimony presented that despite her 

injury, Plaintiff Mother has still been able to enjoy her hobbies such as painting, and 

playing the flute on a consistent basis. Plaintiff mother testified that she wants to 

move to Florida in order to have a "fresh start" and also to get away from 

Defendant Father and his family. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 77. 

At the February 17, 2016 hearing, Dr. Anthony Pisa testified that he conducted a 

custody evaluationln connection with this case which was completed at the end of 

December, 2015. Dr. Pisa testified that Plaintiff Mother's negative behavior towards 

Defendant Father thwarts the chlld's relationship with Defendant Father, and that it 
I The July 26, 2016 order was docketed with the Montgomery County ProthOnotary on July 27, 2016. 

The parties are the parents of one minor child, [A.G.] 

(DOBlOl4l'I07). On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff/Mother 

(hereinafter "Mother") and Defendant/Father ("Father") entered 

into a stipulated custody order which provided for, .l..!iliU alia, 

Mother and Father to share legal custody of the child, Mother to 

have primary physical custody of the child, and Father to have 

partial physical custody of the child every Wednesday 

overnight, as well as every other weekend. 

4 

On July 26, 2016, the court issued an order as follows: 1 

December 29, 2015 final report at 74; N.T. February 17, 2016 at 112. 

"AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2016, upon consideration 

of Defendant's April 27, 2015 Counter-Affidavit Regarding 

Relocation, Plaintiff's July 6, 2015 Petition to Modify an Existing 

Custody Order, Defendant's July 16, 2015 Petition to Modify 

Custody, and Plaintiff's August 25, 2015 Petition for Special 

Relief, following hearings on February 17, 18 and 19, 2016 and 

June 14 and 15, 2016, and upon consideration of Defendant's 

July 15, 2016 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law, and Plaintiff's July 15, 2016 Proposed Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, the Court makes the following findings: 

were to stay in Philadelphia, he would have the benefit of two caring parents ... " 

from Father and Father's extended family ... [the child] would continue to derive 

have to be weighed against the losses incurred by [the child] by being displaced 

benefit from being exposed to Father particularly as he grows older .. .if [the child] 

Pisa states that " ... [t]he benefits derived by Mother as a result of the move would 

1, states that Dr. Pisa does not recommend that the child relocate to Florida. Dr. 

Dr. Pisa's December 29, 2015 final report, marked and entered as trial exhibit M177. 

to thwart Defendant Father's relationship with the child. N.T. February 17, 2016 at 

supported the contention that Plaintiff Mother will have even more of an opportunity 

could have a very negative psychological impact on the child. N.T. February 17, 

2016 at 150-152. If Plaintiff Mother were permitted to relocate to Florida, Dr. Pisa 
There was no persuasive evidence presented at the hearings 

that the quality of the child's education would improve, or 

remain consistent for that matter, if the child relocates to 

Under the current custody order, Father is able to attend the 

child's medical appointments, school conferences, 

extracurricular activities, and religious events if he so chooses. 

If the child relocated to Florida, Father's ability to participate in 

these aspects of the child's upbringing would be severely 

compromised. 

5 

The child has lived in Pennsylvania since his birth. The child has 

developed relationships with extended family in the Philadelphia 

area, which includes his paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles 

and cousins. He also has a close relationship with his two adult 

sisters. The child does not have similar family relationships or a 

similar support system in Florida. 

Under the current custody schedule, Father has partial physical 

custody of the child every Wednesday overnight. There was 

testimony that Father spends meaningful time together with the 

child on Wednesday school days. Father helps the child get 

ready for school in the morning, takes him to school, and in the 

evening Father helps him with his homework and to get ready 

for bed. On Wednesday afternoons Father picks the child up 

from school and takes him to Hebrew School. The Court found 

that a relocation of the child to Florida would be detrimental to 

Father's ability to exercise his periods of partial physical 

custody since the child would be attending school in Florida, 

thereby making Father's overnight custody on Wednesdays 

impossible. Mother has proposed that in exchange for Father 

losing his weekday custodial time, Father would have longer 

periods of time with the child in the summer, and she believes 

a schedule could be created which would give Father a 

"substantially" similar amount of time with the child as he now 

has. The Court does not find that.this is a viable alternative to 

the custodial time which the child currently has with Father, nor 

would Father be able to spend a "substantially" similar amount 

of time with the child if the child relocates to Florida. 

Relocation: 

The Court has considered the best Interests of the child by 

considering the child's current schedule and the importance of 

both parents maintaining an active role in the growth and 

development of the child. Based on the evidence presented at 

the hearings, the Court finds that a relocation to Florida would 

not be in the child's best interests. 

The Court has considered the custody factors at set forth in 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(l) through (a)(16), as well as the 

relocation factors as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(l) 

through (h)(lO) and weighed these factors with the evidence 

presented at the hearings as follows: 
The Court finds that the child has been doing well under the 

current custody schedule. The Court finds that the child's need 

for stability and continuity would best be met by the current 

custody order remaining in effect. Father did not prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that a modification to a shared 

physical custody schedule would be in the child's best interests. 

Father did not prove that- Mother is unable to care for the child 

or is unable to provide for his needs in a manner which would 

support reducing Mother's periods of physical custody. In fact, 

6 

The Court has taken into consideration the testimony of Dr. 

Anthony Pisa, who was appointed on July 20, 2015 by 

agreement of the parties as the custody evaluator in this 

matter. Dr. Pisa testified that if the child were to relocate to 

Florida, in his opinion the child's "loss" from being separated 

from Father and Father's extended family would outweigh any 

benefit g~ined by Mother in relocating. 

Custody: 

Mother's claim that her employment opportunity in Florida 

supports a relocation of the child is not persuasive. The job 

Mother would have in Florida is a part time position with a 

realtor's office, however, Mother does not have a realtor's 

license in either Florida or Pennsylvania. Mother did not present 

any persuasive evidence that she has attempted to find 

employment in Pennsylvania. Mother did not prove to the Court 

that her sole, viable employment opportunity is in Florida and 

that, therefore, relocation would be in the child's best interests. 

Mother testified that one of the reasons she wishes to relocate 

to Florida is because Father and his family have "shunned" her 

from the synagogue, Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El. The Court does 

not find that Mother presented persuasive evidence to support 

this claim. Furthermore, the court does not find that this is a 

valid reason for relocation to another state even if Mother's 

allegations are in fact true. 

Based on the testimony presented at the hearings, the Court 

also has concerns as to Mother's willingness and ability to 

promote the child's relationship with Father if Mother and the 

child relocate to Florida. 

There was also no persuasive evidence that the relocation 

would enhance the general quality of life for the child financially 

or emotionally. 

Florida. The child has special educational needs which are being 

met in Pennsylvania. The child currently attends Lower Merion 

School District. Furthermore, Father testified that he has to a 

limited extent researched private schools in this area which 

could also meet the child's educational needs. 
7 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - RELOCATION BY EITHER PARENT 

Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 5323(c), any custody order shall 

Include notice of a party's obligations under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5337 

relating to relocation, These obligations are contained in 23 

Pa.C.S.A. §5337(b)(General rule),and (c)(Notice)." 

The January 13, 2014 stipulated custody order shall remain in 

full force and effect to the extent that it does not conflict with 

this Order. 

Father's request for shared physical custody of the child is 

DENIED. Father's request to have physical custody of the child 

Thursday overnight preceding Mother's custodial weekends is 

GRANTED. Father shall have custody of the child every 

Thursday preceding Mother's custodial weekend from after 

school on Thursday until Friday morning drop off at school, or 

9:00 a.m. If school is not in session. 

Mother's request for relocation Is DENIED. 

The Court hereby ORDERS and DECREES as follows: 

The Court has also considered the testimony of Dr. Pisa, who 

stated that in his opinion, Mother should retain primary physical 

custody of the child. 

Mother's August 25, 2015 Petition for Special Relief is DENIED. 

There was no persuasive testimony as to any present or past 

physical abuse by either parent or a member of either parent's 

household towards the child. 

Based on the testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that 

neither parent nor any member of either parent's household 

has a mental or physical condition which would affect his/her 

ability to care for the child. 

Based on the testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that 

neither parent has any current issues with drug or alcohol 

abuse which would affect his/her abilfty to care for the child. 

Mother has provided the majority of the parental duties for the 

child. There was testimony that Father sometimes abdicates his 

parental responsibilities and duties to Mother. Mother presented 

evidence to the Court that, on occasion, Father does not always 

take advantage of the time when the child is available to him. 

there was testimony presented that Mother is a "very strong 

parent". 
2 Plaintiff Mother included argument under each issue listed in her concise statement. Pa.R.C.P. 

1925(b)(4)(iv) states in part: "The Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy 

explanations as to any error." Therefore, the court's opinion states only Plaintiff Mother's specific 

matters complained of on appeal, and has not restated her arguments herein. 

8 

a. "The Court erred by failing to individually address the sixteen (16) custody 

factors and ten (10) relocation factors when issuing its Order. The Court failed to 

show that the Court weighed all the custody factors when drawing its conclusion in 

this case." 

b. "The Court erred ln concluding that Respondent should be awarded additional 

physical custody." 

c. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that Respondent spent 'meaningful time together with the child on 

Wednesday'." 

d. "The Court erred in fashioning the custody order by not giving appropriate 

weight to the fact that Respondent repeatedly stated that if he were permitted 

substantially similar time with the child he would consent to the relocation to 

Florida." 

e. "The Court erred by not placing appropriate weight to the fact that 

Respondent testified that he considered Petitioner's proposal to stop support 

payments if she were able to relocate with the child, and that the main reason he 

declined was because he was concerned about what his other children might think of 

him." 

f. "The Court erred by failing to adjudicate the underlying issues outlined in 

the petition for Special Relief" 

g. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that the child has a close relationship with his two adult sisters, as this. 

conclusion is in direct contradiction to the wealth of evidence and testimony 

presented to the contrary." 

h. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that the child had developed a close relationship with Paternal 

Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles and cousins." 

i. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based· upon an Improper 

conclusion that the child.would not have similar family relationships or a similar 

support system in Florida" 

j. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

finding that 'there was no persuasive evidence presented at the hearings that the 

quality of the child's education would improve, or remain consistent for that matter, 

if the child relocates to Florida' was contrary to all the evidence and testimony 

presented, specifically the education expert presented by Petitioner." 

k. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that there was 'no persuasive evidence that the relocation would enhance 

the general quality of life for the child financially or emotionally'." 

904(f) that the matter is a children's fast track appeal, and her Concise Statement 

of Matters Complained of on Appeal which states as follows2: 

Court of Pennsylvania of the July 26, 2016 order, a Notice Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff Mother filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior 
(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. 

9 

determining whether to grant a proposed relocation as follows: 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h) lists the factors which the court shall consider in 

II v. C.B.F., 2003 PA Super 364, 833 A.2d 767 (2003). 

by the evidence of record wlll it interfere with the trial court's determination. K.B. 

appellate court finds that a child custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown 

findings. Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129 (Pa. Super. 2005). Only where the 

the trial court involve an error of law or are unreasonable in light of its factual 

for that of the trial court; the appellate court merely decides if the conclusions of 

appeal from a custody order, the appellate court should not substitute its judgment 

"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 

nonrelocattnq party, siblings and other significant persons in the 

child's life. 

discretion. See Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). When reviewing an 

is limited to determining whether the trial court committed a gross abuse of 

This opinion is filed pursuant to and is in compliance with Pa. R.A.P. 1925 (a). 

The standard of review of a custody order is very narrow; the appellate court 

I. The Court erred In fashioning a custody order based upon improperly 

speculating that Petitioner may not be willing to promote the child's relatlonship with 

Respondent if the child were permitted to relocate." 

m. "The Court erred in applying and adopting Dr. Pisa's conclusions that if the 

child were to relocate to Florida, 'in his opinion the child's loss from being separated 

from Father and Father's extended family would outweigh any benefit gained by 

Mother In relocating'." 

n. "The Court failed to consider the uncontroverted and well-reasoned 

preference of the child, which was to be able to relocate with Petitioner." 
The trial court addresses Plaintiff Mother's claims as follows; 

10 

geographical location. Johns v. Cioci, 2004 PA Super 492, 865 A.2d 931 (2004). 

compelling irterest" of a custodial parent who seeks a better life in another 

parent's interests as little as possible "in the face of the competing and often 

148, 799 A.2d 124 (2002). The trial court should seek to sacrifice the noncustodial 

all interests are treated as equitably as possible. Boyer v. Schake, 2002 PA Super 

in the quality of life for that parent and child. Tripathi v. Tripathi, 2001 PA Super 

322, 787 A.2d 436. A "sensitive case-by-case balancing" is required to ensure that 

move, the burden is on the relocating parent to establish a significant improvement 

In all cases where one parent seeks to relocate and the other parent opposes the 

(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. 

(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life 

for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional 

beri.eflt or educational opportunity. 

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

opposing the relocation. 

(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. 

(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. 

(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. 
custody of the child, Plaintiff Mother has primary physical custody of the child, and 

Defendant Father has partial physical custody of the child every other weekend and 

Pursuant to a January 13, 2014 agreed custody order, the parents share. legal 

b. "The Court erred In concluding that Respondent should be awarded additional 

physical custody," 

dismissed. 

11 

statement is without merit and contrary to the facts of the case, and should be 

decision is based on those considerations. M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 2013 PA 

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

Super 40. Therefore, Plaintiff Mother's claim in paragraph a. of her concise 

require a specific amount of detail for the trial court's explanation of its decision; all 

the relocation decision, in the July 26, 2016 order. The Child Custody Act does not 

so, stating precisely what its reasons were for not only the custody decision, but 

determination in open court on the record or in writing. In this case, the court did 

with the evidence as presented, and to delineate its reasons for a custody 

custody or relocation. The court is simply required to consider the factors along 

sixteen custody factors, or the ten relocation factors when fashioning an order on 

Nothing in 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5321 fil .s..e.g requires the court to "individually address" the 

"Reasons for Award - The court shall delineate the 

reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in 

a written opinion or order." 

a decision for an award of custody. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5323(d) states as follows: 

23 Pa.C.S.A. §5328 lists the factors which the court must consider when reaching 

a. "The Court erred by failing to individually address the sixteen (16) custody 

factors and ten (10) relocation factors when issuing its order. The Court failed to 

show that the Court weighed all the custody factors when drawing its conclusion in 

this case." 
12 

every Wednesday overnight during the school year. As part of the custody litigation 

in this matter, Plaintiff Mother filed a petition to modify the existing custody order. 

At the hearings, and in his post trial brief to the court, Defendant Father requested 

equally shared physical custody of the child. In his final report, Dr. Pisa states: "the 

examiner would not recommend consideration of an equally shared arrangement 

until Father demonstrates over time that he takes advantage of all the time [the 

child] is available to him." December 29, 2015 final report at 74. 

After weighing the evidence presented at the hearings with the custody factors 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5328, the court did not find that an award of shared 

50/50 custody would be in the child's best interests at this time. However, the court 

did find that it would be in the best interests of the child to award Defendant Father 

additional custodial time with the child. 

As stated in the court's July 26, 2016 order, Defendant Father did not prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that a modification to a shared physical custody 

schedule would be in the child's best interests. There was testimony that the child 

is doing well under Plaintiff Mother's primary physical custody, and that Plaintiff 

Mother is a "very strong parent". However, Defendant father requested at the 

hearings that he have physical custody of the child every Thursday preceding 

Plaintiff Mother's custodial weekend from after school until Friday drop off at school. 

This modification provides Defendant Father with two additional overnights with the 

child per month. The court did find that Defendant Father is able to care for the 

child and meet his daily needs, that he has a close, loving relationship with the 

child, and he is able to provide adequate child care for the child when necessary; 

Therefore, although a modification to a shared physical custody schedule may be 
d, "The Court erred in fashioning the custody order by not giving appropriate 

weight to the ~act that Respondent repeatedly stated that if he were permitted 

reached an improper conclusion that Defendant Father and the child spend 

meaningful time together on Wednesday is therefore contrary to the evidence and 

without merit, and should be· dismissed. 

Based on the testimony presented, Plaintiff Mother's allegation that the court 

talking before the child goes to bed. N .T. June 14, 2016 at 287-291. 

helps the child with his homework, and they also spend time together playing or 

Father and Defendant Father's flancee, Ms. Cutler. After dinner, Defendant Father 

child returns to Defendant Father's home, where he has dinner with Defendant 

sharing a snack together. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 284-285. After Hebrew School, the 

present at the Hebrew School, and she and the child get to spend time talking and 

Father takes the child to Hebrew School. The child's paternal grandmother is 

contact with Defendant Father. On Wednesday afternoons after school, Defendant 

child follow a routine on Wednesdays that provides the child with meaningful 

The evidence presented at the hearings proved that Defendant Father and the 

13 

c. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that Respondent spent 'meaningful time together with the child on 

Wednesday'." 

without merit and contrary to the facts of the case, and should be dismissed. 

care for the child. 

Therefore, Plaintiff Mother's claim in paragraph b. of her concise statement is 

Father and the child share a close relationship and that Defendant Father is able to 

abuse of the court's discretion based on the evidence presented that Defendant 

too great a change in the child's routine and schedule at this time, awarding 

Defendant Father two additional overnight periods of custody per month is not an 
12. When asked by Plaintiff Mother's counsel: "so if Ms. Giii]•• can figure out a 

overnight 9/28ths of the time, 32 percent, as he is now, forget it." Trial Exhibit Mwilling to withdraw his request for 50-50 custody if Plaintiff Mother was to withdraw 

her request to relocate, Defendant Father said no. N.T. Ju_ne 15, 2016 at 90. Trial 

Exhibit M-12 is a January 19, 2015 email wherein Defendant Father states to 

Plaintiff Mother: "Unless you can figure a way for [the child] to be with me 

When asked on cross examination by Plaintiff Mother's counsel if he would be 

14 

very much involved in his life ... " N.T. June 15, 2016 at 83. 

imagine my life without him and without watching him on a weekly basis and being 

N.T. June 15, 2016 at 86. Defendant Father testified that he opposed the proposed 

with having to hop on an airplane, stay in a hotel room ... it would not be the same." 

quality and consistency of the closeness of having [the child] nearby with being, 

don't like the plan whatsoever. The same number of days, you can't compare the 

with the child if the child were to relocate to Florida, Defendant Father stated: "I 

relocation to Florida because " .. I love [the child] very, very, much. I can't really 

custodial plan wherein Defendant Father would receive "the same number of days" 

at 85. When asked by his counsel if he would be willing to accept Plaintiff Mother's 

allegation ttiat Defendant Father "repeatedly stated that if he were permitted 

substantially similar time with the child he would consent to the relocation to 

Florida". Defendant Father testified at the June 15, 2016 hearing: "I can't imagine 

[the child] living anywhere other than very, very, close to me ... " N.T. June 15, 2016 · 

The record from the hearings in this matter does not support Plaintiff Mother's 

substantially similar time with the child he would consent to the relocation to 

Florida." 
far into the idea ... and I get too emotional about the fact I wouldn't be as much in 

and gave some additional thought to your offer ... unfortunately I can't even get very 

15 

Mother wherein Defendant Father states in part: "I reread the attached schedule 

hundred miles. 

want to be geographically separated from the child at a distance of over nine 

Trial Exhibit F-22 is a January 17, 2016 email from Defendant Father to Plaintiff 

evidence at the hearings proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 

consistency of the closeness of having [the child] nearby." The weight of the 

relocation of the child to Florida because he did not want to lose "the quality and 

Defendant Father has a close, loving relationship with the child, and he does not 

Mother's concise statement, Defendant Father testified that he he opposed the 

As stated previously in this opinion when addressing paragraph d. of Plaintiff 

evidence presented at the hearings, is without merit, and should be dismissed. 

time with the child he would consent to the relocation to Florida" is contrary to the 

e. "The Court erred by not placing appropriate weight on the fact that 

Respondent testified that he considered Petitioner's proposal to stop support 

payments if she were able to relocate with the child, and that the main reason he 

declined was because he was concerned about what his other children might 

think of him . " 

Defendant Father "repeatedly stated that if he were permitted substantially similar 

Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph d. of her concise statement that 

the child if the child were to relocate to Florida. 

repeatedly state that he would be willing to accept "substantially similar" time with 

during his direct examination, or his cross examination, did Defendant Father 

agreeable", Defendant Father replied "no." N.T. June 15, 2016 at 91. At no time 

way or a proposal for [the child] to be with you 32 percent of the time, are you still 
f. "The Court erred by failing to adjudicate the underlying Issues outlined in the 

petition for Special Relief" 

e. of her concise statement is without merit, and should be dismissed. 

relocation are disingenuous. Consequently, Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph 

16 

which the court could conclude that Defendant Father's motivations for opposing 

payments in exchange for relocation, a proposal which Defendant Father testified 

one time consideration of a proposal of Plaintiff Mother's to eliminate support 

court did place the appropriate amount of weight on this issue. Defendant Father's 

he " ... didn't consider it very long, and it was a clear no", does not rise to the level to 

Defendant Father simply replied: "It was an issue." 

and you told her what would the girls think of me. That was your issue right?" 

counsel stated when referring to trial exhibit F-22: "you considered the relocatlonr> 

what his other children might think of him", on cross examination, Plaintiff Mother's 

child, and that the main reason he declined was because he was concerned about 

Petitioner's proposal to stop support payments if she were able to relocate with the 

Contrary to Plaintiff Mother's position, in reaching a decision in this matter, the 

Although Plaintiff Mother does not refer to any specific portion of the record to 

support her contention that Defendant Father "testified that he considered 

154. However, when asked by his counsel if he considered this proposal, Defendant 

Father testified: " .. .I didn't consider it very long, and it was a clear no." N.T. June 

15, 2016 at 154. 

· [the child's] life." Defendant Father testified that this email related to Plaintiff 

Mother's proposal that in exchange for her relocating to Florida with the child, 

Defendant Father would no longer have to pay her alimony. N.T. June 15, 2016 at 
3 The child has a third sister, oa G dli • , who died in an automobile accident in 2005 at the age of 

nineteen. 

She stated that: "I'm his sister, but because I'm much older, I feel like I'm also a 

Fa o Gil I I testified that she also has a good relationship with the .child. 

as often as she does now. 

that if the child were to relocate to Florida, she would not be able to see the child 

17 

extremely distressing to me." N.T. June 14, 2016 at 180. J- cai•••t.1 testified 

me, and it is the only reason that I'm [testifying] right now, because this is 

176. J.-. Gt• I I testified: "My relationship with [the child] is everything to 

for a year at his preschool, where she saw him every day. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 

several summers as his nanny, and after she graduated from college, she.worked 

always been very close". N.T. June 14, 2016 at 176. She stated that she worked for 

J.,.... c•• .... 

3 J- G· IC: t testified-that her relationship with the child "has 

The child in this matter has two living adult sisters, FR•• Gd I & r and 

should be dismissed. 

Mother's allegation in paragraph f. of her concise statement is without merit, and 

the court failed to "adjudicate" the petition for special relief. Consequently, Plaintiff 

g. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that the child has a close relationship with his two adult sisters, as this 

conclusion is in direct contradiction to the wealth of evidence and testimony 

presented to the contrary." 

August 25, 2015 Petition for Special Relief is denied. Therefore, it is unclear how 

enrolling him in a new Hebrew school which would be mutually agreed upon by both· 

court issue an order withdrawing the child from his current Hebrew school, and 

parents. The court's July 26, 2016 Order states on page 5 that Plaintiff Mother's 

Plaintiff Mother's August 25, 2015 Petition for Special Relief requested that the 
all live in the Philadelphia area. The child's paternal grandmother, J•••: •• 

Gd :a, testified that she has a "warm and loving" relationship with the child. 

The child's paternal grandparents, paternal aunt and uncle, and paternal cousins 

18 

h. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that the child had developed a close relationship with Paternal 

Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles and cousins." 

and should be dismissed. 

paraqraph f. of her concise statement is without merit, contrary to the evidence, 

he were to relocate to Florida. Consequently, Plaintiff Mother's allegation in 

deal of affection for him, and their relationship with hlrnwould be compromised if 

siblings may have for one another. 

quality and nature of the relationship as well as the feelings of affection which 

conclude that the amount of time which siblings spend together outweighs the 

spend with the child rather than the quality of the relationships. The court did not 

The testimony in this matter clearly indicates that the child's sisters have a great 

child's relationship with his two sisters by focusing on the amount of time they 

During cross-examination, Plaintiff Mother's counsel attempted to diminish the 

indicates that the court did not reach an "improper conclusion" in finding that the 

child's sisters have a close and loving relationship with him. 

a similar situation." N.T. June 14, 2016 at 217-218. The weight of the evidence 

Florida once a year, " ... and I expect that if my brother moves to Florida, it would be 

him because she was only able to manage seeing her grandmother who lived in 

to relocate to Florida, she would be "deflnltelv" worried about her relationship with 

guardian of his .. .I was home quite a bit. I go home every five to six weeks. I see 

him each time." N.T. June 14, 2016 at 207. She also testified that if the child were 
never heard of Mr. Levine prior to the custody litigation, and Plaintiff Mother 

Levine. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 89. The parties' daughters testified that they had 

testified she is estranged from ("we always have been"), and a cousin, Randy 

family currently living in Florida consists of two people; her sister, whom she 

"support system" in Florida. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 88. However, Plaintiff Mother's 

Plaintiff Mother testified that despite living in Pennsylvania all her life, she has a 

19 

i. "The Court erred in fashioning a.custody order based upon an Improper 

conclusion that the child would not have similar family relationships or a similar 

support system in Florida" 

and should be dismissed. 

paragraph g. of her concise statement is without merit, contrary to the evidence, 

limited, if not effectively eliminated. Consequently, Plaintiff Mother's allegation in 

compromised if he were to relocate to Florida since his time with them would be 

clearly indicates that the child's relationship with his paternal relatives would be 

relatives in the Philadelphia area was not improper. The testimony in this matter 

The court's conclusion that the child has a close relationship with his paternal 

cousins, whom he sees "all the time." N.T. June 15, 2016 at 44. 

vacation with them many times. The child also has a "great" relationship with his 

knows his paternal aunt and uncle "very well", and he has socialized and been on 

who "are included in every family dinner." N.T. June 15, 2016 at 44. The child 

paternal grandparents, and a "great" relationship with his paternal aunt and uncle, 

on Sundays the family gets together for a meal. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 125-126. 

Defendant Father testified that the child has an "excellent" relationship with his 

Jersey shore with him, that she sees him every Wednesday at Hebrew school, and 

N.T. June 14, 2016 at 120. She testified that she spends summers at the New 
would not have similar family relationships or a similar support system in Florida as 

For the above stated reasons, the court did not err in concluding that the child 

participants in the child's upbringing. 

Borine, has a close relationship with the child, or that they have been active 

no persuasive evidence to show that any of these individuals, other than Mr. 

20 

system for the child in Florida to the one which he has in Pennsylvania. There was 

the hearings does not prove that these individuals would provide a similar support 

parties' daughters attendedwhen they were children. The testimony presented at 

individuals are "Isaac and Rose", operators of a summer camp in Florida where the 

whom she had lost touch for twenty five years, is the second individual. The final 

was "romantic". At the time of the hearings, Mr. Borine was planning on moving to 

good friends" with Plaintiff Mother, and that "at times" their five year relationship 

individuals. The first is Mr. Farrell Borine, who testified that he is "best friends, 

Florida in early Auqust, 2016. Laurie Dubow, a friend of Plaintiff Mother's with 

in Florida to those which he currently has in Pennsylvania. 

err or improperly conclude that the child would not have similar family relationships 

Plaintiff Mother's remaining support system in Florida would consist of four 

she is "pretty much alone". N.T. June 14, 2016 at 89. Therefore the court did not 

family. Plaintiff Mother herself testified that when it comes to her extended family, 

testified that her daughters do not know Randy Levine and that they don't have a 

relationship with him. N.T. February 19, 2016 at 71; N.T. June 14, 2016 at 63 186. 

Based on the evidence presented at the hearings, the court cannot conclude that : 

Plaintiff Mother's family members in Florida would provide "similar family 

relationships" for the child comparable to those he has with Defendant Father's 
N.T. February 18, 2016 at 186. When asked by Plaintiff Mother's counsel if it would 

also did not meet with any of the child's teachers, nor did she meet with the child. 

[Plaintiff Mother] had sent me." N.T. February 18, 20l6 at 171-172, 184-186. She 

21 

opinion as to the child's current behavioral issues was based on "communications 

Lower Merion School District because it was not provided to her, and that her 

However, Ms. Vetter testified that she did not review the child's current IEP from 

Merion School District was not addressing all of the child's behavioral needs. 

educational consultant, as a witness. Ms. Vetter testified that in her opinion, Lower 

Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and AIM Academy in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 

At the February 18, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff Mother called Maria Vetter, an 

the child attending private school, specifically Perelman Jewish Day School in 

2016 at 246. Defendant Father testified that he has researched the possibility of 

also feels that the child would do better in a private school setting. N .T. June 14, 

language based learning differences. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 244-245. Defendant 

an individualized educational plan (IEP) through the school district to address his 

Father testified that he is happy with the Lower Merion School District, but that he 

Lower Merion School District. There was also testimony that the child is receiving 

There was testimony presented that the child currently attends school in the 

j. ·"The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

finding that 'there was no persuasive evidence presented at the hearings that the 

quality of the child's education would improve, or remain consistent for that 

matter, If the child relocates to Florida' was contrary to all the evidence and 

testimony presented, specifically the education expert presented by Petitioner." 

dismissed. 

of her concise statement is without merit, contrary to the evidence, and should be 

he has in Pennsylvania. Consequently, Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph h. 
22· 

be detrimental or beneficial to move the child to a different school district, Ms. 

Vetter stated that it would "depend on the child". N.T. February 18, 2016 at 184. 

Ms. Vetter did not offer an opinion as to whether the school system in Boca 

Raton would specifically be able to meet the child's academic and behavioral needs 

to a degree which surpasses the Lower Merion School District. In fact, she testified 

that she "researched" the Palm Beach School District, and "talked to" the Donna 

Klein Jewish Academy in Florida, however she did not provide any testimony as to 

whether either that specific school district, or that specific school, would be a good 

academic fit for the child, and would better be able to meet his learning and 

behavioral issues. N.T. February 18, 2016 at 188. Ms. Vetter also testified that she 

is not familiar with Florida schools. N.T. February 18, 2016 at 188. Ms. Vetter 

agreed with Defendant Father's counsel that there are appropriate schools for the 

child in Pennsylvania, however, she did not research them as part of her 

consultant services in this case since she was not asked to do so by Plaintiff 

Mother. 

Plaintiff Mother's claim is without merit and that all the evidence presented at the 

hearings, specifically, the education expert's testimony, proves that the court erred 

in finding that "there was no persuasive evidence presented at the hearings that 

the quality of the child's education would improve, or remain consistent for that 

matter, if the child relocates to Florida" Ms. Vetter's opinion was based on 

incomplete data; she did not review the child's current IEP, nor did she interview 

the child or the child's teachers. At most, based on the information provided to her 

by Plaintiff Mother, she offered the opinion that the Lower Merion School District is 

not meeting the child's behavioral needs. She did not, however, testify that any · 
December 29, 2015 final report at 74; N.T. February 17, 2016 at 112. 

were to stay in Philadelphia, he would have the benefit of two caring parents ... " 

have to be weighed against the losses incurred by [the child] by being displaced 

from Father and Father's extended family ... [the child] would continue to derive 

benefit from being exposed to Father particularly as he grows older ... if [the child] 

Pisa states that " ... [t]he benefits derived by Mother as a result of the move would 

1, states that Dr. Pisa does not recommend that the child relocate to Florida. Dr. 

Dr. Pisa's December 29, 2015 final report, marked and entered as trial exhibit MFather's relationship with the child. N.T. February 17, 2016 at 177. 

23 

Plaintiff Mother could have even more of an opportunity to thwart Defendant 

Mother were permitted to relocate to Florida, Dr. Pisa supported the contention that 

psychological impact on the child. N.T. February 17, 2016 at 150-152. If Plaintiff 

relationship with Defendant Father and that it could have a very negative 

Plaintiff Mother's negative behavior towards Defendant Father thwarts the child's 

relocation to Florida would emotionally benefit the child. Dr. Pisa testified that 

• 

Plaintiff Mother offered no persuasive evidence or opinion testimony that 

evidence, and should be dismissed. 

allegation in paragraph j. of her concise statement is without merit, contrary to the 

k. "The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon an improper 

conclusion that there was 'no persuasive evidence that the relocation would 

enhance the general quality of life for the child financiaUy or emotionally'." 

to meet the child's academic and behavioral needs. Consequently, Plaintiff Mother's 

as raised by Defendant Father, that a private school in Pennsylvania would be able 

school in Florida would be better for the child, nor did she discount the possibility, 
24 

In her July 15, 2016 post trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

when addressing the emotional benefits for the child if he were to relocate to 

Florida, Plaintiff Mother states that the move would "allow [the child] easy access to 

the beach and ocean, which is his 'happy place'." Plaintiff Mother also states that 

living in Florida would provide the opportunity for the child to play outdoors "the 

majority of the year", that there are "many kids" in Plaintiff Mother's proposed 

neighborhood for the child to play with, and that relocation "will also preserve the 

child's close relationship with Mother" and Mr. Borine. July 15, 2016 Proposed 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, page 15-16. 

The court did not find that Plaintiff Mother's reasoning as to the alleged 

emotional benefits to the child as stated above override Dr. Pisa's opinion that the 

child needs to have the constant benefit and guidance of both parents, which will 

not be possible if the child relocates over nine hundred miles away. In fact, Dr. Pisa 

testified that Plaintiff Mother's negative behavior towards Defendant Father may 

thwart the child's relationship with Defendant Father. If permitted to relocate to 

Florida, Plaintiff Mother will have even more of an opportunity to thwart Defendant 

Father's relationship with the child, which is not emotionally healthy for the child. It 

is telling that Plaintiff Mother feels she must relocate to Florida in order to 

"preserve" her relationship with the child. From this statement, it would appear that 

Plaintiff Mother's agenda is to diminish Defendant Father's relationship with the 

child, and his role in the child's upbringing, while promoting her own role. 

Plaintiff Mother's testimony as to any financial benefit to be gained for the child 

by relocation was not persuasive. Plaintiff Mother testified that she intended to 

work as a real estate agent's assistant in Florida with the intention of becoming a 
well. So, Mom to the rescue. Results ... a happy little man! Hopefully next year he 

to the Eagles game without him, and surprised them with personalized shirts, as 

and post states: "The little man was upset that his Dad took his siblings and cousin 

The comment and photos are followed by a frowning face. Another Facebook photo 

did your father do to the beautiful bleached blonde hair you cultivated all summer?" 

Mother posts two pictures of the child with a new haircut and states: "Oh no! What 

on Defendant Father's alleged negative behavior towards the child. In one, Plaintiff 

exhibit F-3 is a series of Facebook posts wherein Plaintiff Mother publicly comments 

behavior which portrays Defendant Father in a negative manner to the child. Trial 

There was evidence presented at the hearings that Plaintiff Mother engages in 

I. The Court erred in fashioning a custody order based upon improperly 

speculating that Petitioner may not be willing to promote the child's relationship 

with Respondent if the child were permitted to relocate." 

25 

dismissed. 

concise statement is without merit, contrary to the evidence, and should be 

either emotionally or financially for the child in Florida. 

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph k. of her 

case, Plaintiff Mother did not prove there would be any significant improvement 

in the quality of life for that parent and child. Tripathi, 2001 PA Super 322. In this 

cases, the burden is on the relocating parent to establish a significant improvement 

similar financial benefit. N.T. June 14, 2016 64-66, 115, 1?-4. In all relocation 

Pennsylvania or that attempted to find any job in Pennsylvania which may provide a : 

Plaintiff Mother offered no persuasive evidence that she sought a similar position in 

Pennsylvania or Florida real estate license. N.T. June 14, 2016 at 115. Furthermore, 

part-time real estate agent. However, Plaintiff Mother does not have either a 
26 

Trial exhibit F-4 is a list of negative comments which Defendant Father states 

that Plaintiff Mother has made about him to the child. Number 11 on the list is a 

comment which the child made to Defendant Father when the child asked 

Defendant Father: "Mommy said you don't want to be with me. Is that true?" 

Number 16 on the list is a comment made by the child where he said to Defendant 

Father: "Mom told me you never want to take me extra time like Mom does." The 

list also contains several instances where the child has made comments to 

Defendant Father that indicate that Plaintiff Mother has discussed details of the 

parties' marriage and divorce with the child to a degree which can be interpreted as 

inappropriate. 

Dr. Pisa testified that Plaintiff Mother's negative behavior towards Defendant 

Father may thwart the child's relationship with Defendant Father and that it could 

have a very negative psychological impact on the child. Furthermore, Dr. Pisa 

stated on page 71 of his December 29, 2015 final report: "The examiner believes 

that there is not a pattern of behavior exhibited by Mother or Father to indicate that 

they are not supportive of [the child] maintaining a relationship with both parents. 

However, Mother's proposed geographic relocation would clearly alter [the child's] 

relationship with his dad." 

Based on the evidence presented at the hearlnqs, the court did not "improperly 

speculate" that Plaintiff Mother may not be willing to promote the child's 

relationship with Defendant Father if the child were permitted to relocate. The court 

and I will get to a game at Lincoln Field." Yet another Facebook post is a quotation 

which reads "Any woman can be a mother, but it takes a Bad-A** Mom to be a dad 

too." 
Both parties stipulated to Dr. Pisa's qualifications as an expert in child custody 

hearings, February 17, 2016, Plaintiff Mother called Dr. Anthony Pisa as a witness, 

evaluation, and submitted a final report on December 29, 2015. On the first day of 

the costs of which were to be paid by Plaintiff Mother. Dr. Pisa completed his 

by agreement of the parties, Dr. Anthony Pisa would perform a custody evaluation, 

appointed in this matter. On July 20, 2015, the court issued an order stating that 

On Julv 6, 2015, Plaintiff Mother filed a petition for a custody evaluator to be 

27 

merit, contrary to the evidence, and should be dismissed. 

Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph I. of her concise statement is without 

relationship with Defendant Father if the child were permitted to relocate to Florida. 

erly speculate that Plaintiff Mother may not be willing to promote the child's 

For the above stated reasons, the Court.did not err or i m prop 

m. "The Court erred in applying and adopting Dr. Pisa's conclusions that if the 

child were to relocate to Florida, 'in his opinion the child's loss from being 

separated from Father and Father's extended family would outweigh any benefit 

gained by Mother in relocating." 

that the child's relocation to Florida would "clearly alter [the child's] relationship 

with his dad." 

maintaining a relationship with both parents" needs to be weighed against the fact 

exhibited by Mother or Father to indicate that they are not supportive of [the child] 

that Plaintiff Mother's prior behavior can be interpreted as being detrimental to 

encouraging and supporting Defendant Father's parenting role. Dr. Pisa himself 

stated in his report that even his belief that there is not a pattern of "behavior 

weighed the evidence with each and every custody and relocation factor, and found 
statement that the child told Dr. Pisa he wanted to move to Florida because his 

February 17, 2016 hearing, Dr. Pisa agreed with Defendant Father's counsel's 

from the child's interview with Dr. Pisa as part of the custody evaluation. At the 

' The only instance of the child expressing a prefer.ence as to relocation comes 

198. 

28 

don't need [the child] as a witness to testify in this case." N.T. June 15, 2016 at 

custody determination in this matter. At the conclusion of testimony on June 15, 

2016, Defendant Father's counsel stated: "we're in agreement, Your Honor, that we 

By agreement of the parties, the court did not interview the child as part of the 

concise statement is without merit and should be dismissed. 

gained by Mother in relocating." Plaintiff Mother's allegation in paragraph m. of her 

separated from Father and Father's extended family would outweigh any benefit 

n. "The Court failed to consider the uncontroverted and well-reasoned 

preference of the child, which was to be able to relocate with Petitioner." 

if the child were to relocate to Florida, "in his opinion the child's loss from being 

unreliable. Therefore, the court did not err in considering Dr. Pisa's conclusions that 

Pisa's evaluation and subsequent report were inherently flawed, biased, or 

and relocation factors. Neither party presented any persuasive evidence that Dr. 

testimony with the evidence presented at the hearings, as well as with the custody 

recommendation, assessed his testimony, and weighed both the report and the 

Plaintiff Mother's request for relocation. The court read Dr. Pisa's report and 

1 and moved into evidence by Plaintiff Mother's counsel. 

The court did not accept Dr. Pisa's recommendation as the sole reason to deny 

evaluation. Dr. Pisa's December 29, 2015 final report was marked as trial exhibit M- 
therefore be dismissed. 

preference of the child when reaching a decision in this matter. Plaintiff Mother's 

allegation in paragraph n. of her concise statement is without merit and should 

For the above stated reasons, the court did not err or fail to consider the 

29 

decision. 

the child's young age (eight years old at the time of the hearings) when reaching a 

Mother's needs, not his own. Furthermore, the court also took into consideration 

the child's preference was "uncontroverted and well-reasoned". According to Dr. 

decision in this matter, based on Dr. Pisa's testimony, the court did not find that 

Pisa, the child had been "prepared" to state his preference in terms of Plaintiff 

child's stated preference in the custody evaluation into account when reaching a 

Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 2002 PA Super 46. Although the court took the 

intelligence of that child, together with the reasons given for the preference. 

yes." N.T. February 17, 2016 at 159. 

The weight to be accorded a child's preference varies with the age, maturity and 

that meeting, to talk about Florida?", to which Dr. Pisa replied: "He was prepared, 

to which Dr. Pisa replied: "His internalization of his mother, yes." N.T. February 17, 

2016 at 159. Defendant Father's counsel asked: "In fact, he clearly was prepped for: 

wanted to move to Florida is really his reading his mother in that respect, correct", 

. . 2016 at 159. Counsel asked: "So this coming in and telling you adamantly he 

what moving across the country means?", Dr. Pisa replied: "No". N .T. February 17, 

Defenda~t Father's counsel: "do you think an eight year old can really understand 

mother's hand hurts and she'll be better in Florida. However, when asked by 
7)1~~ 

Secretary 

Copies pf the above Opinion sent 

on 10//F/1~ to the following: 

By Firs{-c1ass Mail: 

Maria Testa, Esquire 

Cheryl L. Young, Esquire 

/2~_fl<1J_ 

PATRICIA E. COONAHAN, J. 

BY THE COURT: 

30 

affirmed. 

Plaintiff Mother's appeal be dismissed and the court's July 26, 2016 order be 

Super 322 (2001). For the above reasons, the trial court respectfully requests that 

prove that "a significant improvement in the quality of life for that parent and child" 

would occur if she were permitted to move to Florida with the child. Tripathi. PA 

two additional overnights of physical custody per month. Plaintiff Mother did not 

denying Plaintiff Mother's· request for relocation, and for granting Defendant Father 

In the Court's July 26, 2016 Order, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in