Court Opinion

ID: 9735232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:06:24.230401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.250411
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, J.,
concurring:
¶ 1 I join the result reached by the majority but write separately to emphasize that a custodial parent is not required to seek the court’s permission prior to relocating.
¶ 2 Unlike some other states, Pennsylvania does not have an “anti-relocation” statute prohibiting a custodial parent from removing a child from the jurisdiction without the permission of the court. Gancas v. Schultz, 453 Pa.Super. 324, 683 A.2d 1207 (1996). Rather, the parties are free to live where they choose as long as they notify each other promptly of any change. If the non-custodial parent believes the relocation is not in the child’s best interest, the non-custodial parent may, of course, challenge the relocation. Id. If the relocation is to another state, the trial court must analyze the move using the factors set forth in Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa.Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990).
¶ 3 Under our decision today, if the move is within the same county, a Gruber analysis is not necessary. Rather the court must use the best interest of the child standard. Where the move is within the same county, the burden should be on the non-custodial parent who is challenging the move to show that the relocation is not in the best interest of the child.
¶ 4 Inter-county moves fall somewhere between these two situations. Gruber may be applied where the geographical distance is great, such as a move from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. However, when the move *253is a short distance, as to a contiguous county, Gruber should not apply and, again, the parent challenging the move should have the burden to show that the move is not in the child’s best interest. The determination of whether to use a Gruber analysis should be within the discretion of the trial court.3 A move to another county may involve nothing more than moving across the street. Under such circumstances, we cannot burden our family courts with the necessity of prior approval of any relocation absent a show-' ing by the non-custodial parent that such a move will negatively affect the parent-child relationship.

. My view is consistent with the few published opinions which deal with the issue of whether Gruber should be applied to inter-county relocations. In Beers v. Beers, 710 A.2d 1206 (Pa.Super.1998), the first case to squarely decide the issue, the majority opinion stated that the determination of whether to use a Gruber analysis must be left to the discretion of the trial court which can then determine whether the geographical distance is significant enough to alter the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent. Compare Perrott v. Perrott, 713 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super.1998) (Gruber analysis appropriate in evaluating move from Pittsburgh to Wayne County-King of Prussia area).