SHOW IT IS 19.5 MILES AND AN AVERAGE OF ONE HOUR OR MORE DRIVING TIME, AND SHE DID NOT CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TIME IN HER PROPOSED CUSTODY SCHEDULE FOR GRANDFATHER, NONETHELESS HER RELOCATION DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR GRANDFATHER'S ABILITY TO EXERCISE CUSTODIAL RIGHTS AS SET FORTH ABOVE BY THIS COURT. HENCE, THE RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS OF 23 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 5337 ARE NOT APPLICABLE,
NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELOCATE: NO PARTY MAY MAKE A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE OF ANY CHILD WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRS THE ABILITY OF THE OTHER PARTY TO EXERCISE CUSTODIAL RIGHTS WITHOUT FIRST COMPLYING WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF 23 PA.C.S. SECTION 5337 AND PA.R.C.P. NO. 1915.17 REGARDING RELOCATION.
SUMMARY OPINION DISCUSSION OF FACTORS IN SUPPORT OF CUSTODY ORDER
THE SUMMARY OPINION OF THIS COURT DATED OCTOBER 22, 2018 IS HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS A FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODY ORDER OF FEBRUARY 4, 2019.
FACTORS UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 5328(C) (1)
PATERNAL GRANDFATHER HAS STANDING FOR PARTIAL PHYSICAL OR SUPERVISED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 5325 (1) AS GRANDFATHER OF THE CHILD'S DECEASED FATHER.
THE FACTORS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR AN AWARD OF PARTIAL OR SUPERVISED PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT OR GREAT-GRANDPARENT UNDER 23 PA,C.S.A. SECTION 5328(C) (1) ARE:
(I) THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE PARTY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ACTION: OR622 \\ REV 9105 JN482073 Page 3 of 6 CASE ID. OC1701579 ORDER DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2019
THE CHILD WAS ONLY NINE AND 1/2 MONTHS OLD WHEN GRANDFATHER FILED HIS COMPLAINT FOR PARTIAL CUSTODY, AND, TRAGICALLY, THE CHILD'S FATHER, GRANDFATHER'S SON, JACOB SNYDER, HAD PASSED AWAY ON MAY 9, 2017, WHEN THE CHILD WAS LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS OLD. GRANDFATHER VISITED AT THE HOSPITAL RIGHT AFTER THE CHILD WAS BORN, HELPED MOTHER AND FATHER PAINT THE NURSERY, WATCHED THE CHILD WHEN MOTHER WENT TO THE HOSPITAL TO SEE FATHER ON AN ALMOST DAILY BASIS. NOTES OF TESTIMONY, MAY 22, 2018, AT 28, 40 AND 50. THEREAFTER GRANDFATHER SAW THE CHILD ON A REGULAR BASIS IN ADDITION TO EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY WHEN MOTHER WENT RUl:\��ING .AND ONCE MOTHER RETURNED TO WORK, HE AND STEP-GRANDMOTHER MYRNA BUTKOVITZ PROVIDED CHILD CARE TWO DAYS PER WEEK. N.T. AT 187, 189.
(II) WHETHER THE AWARD INTERFERES WITH ANY PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP:
GRANDFATHER PRIMARILY SOUGHT PERIODS OF CUSTODY WITH THE CHILD DURING THE TIME THE CHILD WAS IN CHILDCARE, WHEN MOTHER WAS AT WORK SO AS NOT TO TAKE AWAY FROM HER CUSTODY TIME WITH THE CHILD AND THE ORDER AS SET FORTH ABOVE FOLLOWS THAT GUIDELINE. THERE ARE VERY LIMITED PERIODS OF CUSTODY AWARDED TO GRANDFATHER WHEN THE CHILD WOULD OTHERWISE BE IN MOTHER1S CUSTODY. (III) WHETHER THE AWARD IN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD:
SINCE PATERNAL GRANDFATHER IS THE ONLY GRANDPARENT WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CHILD'S LIFE AFTER HIS BIRTH, WITH PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER'S INVOLVEMENT BEING VERY LITTLE, AND SINCE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS ARE DECEASED, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IT SERVES THE