Court Opinion

ID: 9629609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:46:07.687916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:21.579063
License: Public Domain

ORIE MELVIN, J.,
concurring:
¶ 1 The trial court held the first Gru-ber prong was satisfied based solely on its finding that the move improved Mother’s quality of life. Because we are bound by this Court’s decision in Zalenko v. White, 701 A.2d 227 (Pa.Super.1997), I must agree that neither the trial court nor the Majority erred in relying on that decision in concluding that the first Gruber factor was met. Gruber requires an examination of whether the relocating parent has demonstrated that the move is likely to substantially improve the quality of life for the parent and the child. Our Court in Zalen-ko held that a parent seeking to relocate with a child need not show an independent advantage to the child from the move. Rather, the Court found that if the move substantially benefits the relocating parent, such benefits flow to the child and are sufficient for purposes of Gruber.
¶ 2 I write separately to express my concern that a relocating parent’s improved quality of life should be but one aspect to consider in determining whether the first Gruber factor has been satisfied. I believe there should be a separate and independent advantage of the move to the child. Such advantage should be independent from indirect benefit a child will receive from the relocating parent’s improved quality of life. This comports with our overriding concern that the decision must be in the child’s best interests. In this respect, I agree with Judge Cava-naugh’s dissenting opinion in Zalenko, in which he wrote:
Custody disputes are delicate issues which must be handled on a case by case basis ... It can not be said that every case where the life of a parent is “substantially improved” through relocation, that the life of the child will automatically be “substantially improved.” Nor do I believe that to be the intent of Gruber. Such a finding shifts the focus of the inquiry from the child to the parent. As stated, the standard should remain that a substantial improvement is shown for parent and child.
Zalenko at 230 (dissenting opinion by Ca-vanaugh, J). As I share in Judge Cava-naugh’s concerns in Zalenko, I must concur in the Majority’s decision.