CHILD'S EDUCATION,
FAMILY LIFE AND COMMUNITY LIFE. THE COURT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THIS FACTOR
PRIOR TO TRANSFERRING CUSTODY, THE COURT GAVE WEIGHT TO THE OVERALL
PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF EACH CHILD. THE COURT DETERMINED THAT
THE CHILDREN HAVE STABILITY IN THEIR FAMILY LIFE AND COMMUNITY LIFE WITH
FATHER.
(5) THE AVAILABILITY OF EXTENDED FAMILY. EACH PARENT HAS REMARRIED.
THERE WAS LITTLE TESTIMONY OF OTHER EXTENDED FAMILY, SO THIS FACTOR WAS NOT
RELEVANT.
(6) THE CHILD'S SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS. THE PARTIES HAVE THREE BIOLOGICAL
CHILDREN TOGETHER. FATHER AND HIS WIFE HAVE A TWO-YEAR-OLD SON. DUE TO THE
Circulated 04/02/2015 11:45 AM
\
THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO YOUNGER CHILDEN
WOULD BE SERVED BY TRANSFERRING CUSTODY OF THEM TO FATHER.
(7) THE WELL-REASONED PREFERENCE OF THE CHILD, BASED ON THE CHILD'S
MATURITY AND JUDGMENT. NEITHER E~ NOR ~XPRESSED A PREFERENCE.
M~, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSISTENTLY HAS EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO SEE
FATHER. THIS COURT DETERMINED THAT HER PREFERENCE, ALTHOUGH NOT
PARTICULARLY WELL-REASONED, INTERFERES SUBSTANTIALLY WITH FATHER'S CUSTODY
OF THE TWO YOUNGER CHILDREN.
(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. THIS COURT FINDS
THAT MOTHER HAS MADE CONSISTENT ATTEMPTS TO THWART CUSTODY BETWEEN
FATHER AND THE CHILDREN, AND IN THE SITUATION WITH MEl~e:IA!\I, HAS SUCCEEDED.
{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. THE COURT FINDS THAT FATHER IS MORE LIKELY TO MAINTAIN A
LOVING, STABLE, CONSISTENfAND NURTURING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN
WHICH IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THEIR EMOTIONAL NEEDS.
(10) WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO ATTEND TO THE DAILY PHYSICAL,
EMOTIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL AND SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE CHILD. BOTH
PARTIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR CAPABILITIES IN THIS AREA. HOWEVER, THIS
COURT DETERMINED THAT MOTHER'S ANIMOSITY TOWARDS FATHER SEEMS TO BE ·
EXACERBATING THE CHILDREN'S PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES.
Circulated 04/02/2015 11:45 AM
(11) THE PROXIMITY OF THE RESIDENCES OF THE PARTIES. MOTHER NOW RESIDES
IN PHILADELPHIA. FATHER RESIDES OUTSIDE OF BALTIMORE, IN DUNDALK, MARYLAND.
THE DISTANCE IS 110 MILES AND IS APPROXIMATELY A TWO-HOUR DRIVE. rr IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT BEFORE MOTHER MOVED TO PHILADELPHIA, SHE RESIDED JN
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA, WHERE THE PARTIES APPEARED FOR RELOCATION
HEARINGS. ON FEBRUARY 22, 2010, THE PARTIES' FINAL ORDER WAS ENTERED AND
SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
(12) EACH PARTY'S AVAILABILITY TO CARE FOR THE CHILD OR ABILITY TO MAKE
APPROPRIATE CHILD-CARE ARRANGEMENTS. BOTH PARENTS' AVAILABILITY TO CARE FOR
THE CHILDREN HAS BEEN ADEQUATE.
(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. THIS COURT FINDS
THAT THE PARTIES HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME IN COMMUNICATING BASIC INFORMATION
REGARDING THE