Court Opinion

ID: 9912110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 17:09:39.478003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:05.104355
License: Public Domain

J-S41017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  ADAM LEYTRICK                                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  STEPHANIE LEYTRICK                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 815 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered June 14, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Civil Division at No(s):
                              No. 2022-02278

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                           FILED: December 21, 2023

       Appellant, Stephanie Leytrick (“Mother”), appeals from the order

entered on June 14, 2023, which denied Mother’s petition to relocate and

modified an existing child custody order. We affirm.

       The trial court thoroughly summarized the underlying facts of this case:

         Mother [currently resides in Grove City, Pennsylvania] with
         the children C.L., 9 years old, and V.L., 7 years old. [Adam
         Leytrick (“Father”) is 44 years old] and also resides in Grove
         City, Pennsylvania. Father resides alone, other than when
         the subject children are with him.

         Father has lived in the Grove City area for approximately [14]
         years and the children have lived in the Grove City area their
         entire lives. The parties were married April 24, 2010. There
         is a dispute, and it is unclear, when the parties separated.
         Mother alleged both March 2022 as well as September 2022
         while [Father] alleged January 2022. All parties agreed since
         separation the children have resided primarily with [Mother].
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41017-23

       Father was previously employed as a meat cutter at Giant
       Eagle in New Castle, Pennsylvania.         He is currently
       unemployed but the issue is being grieved through the union
       process. Mother works for an agency known as "clipboard"
       and is [a registered nurse (“RN”)]. She works primarily in
       long term care facilities in Beaver and Clarion Counties.
       Mother currently makes $48.00/hour.          Mother works
       approximately [20] hours per week.

       Mother's parents live approximately [45] minutes from her
       current location as does her brother. She also has four []
       nieces and nephews, ranging in age from [four] to [11].

       Father's family is comprised of [61] people from the
       generation of his parents, himself, and his children. The
       court notes the subject children are close with their paternal
       cousins.    Mother admitted the children have a good
       relationship with their maternal grandparents as well as with
       paternal grandmother.

       All witnesses agreed the children are well-behaved, do well
       in school, and are active. When with [Father], the children
       play with other kids in his neighborhood, C.L. plays garage
       hockey with [Father], they go on walks, or hunting, [Father]
       plants flowers, watches movies and cooks with V.L. and they
       all go swimming in the pool. V.L. likes to sing and dance.
       When the children are with [Mother] they go bowling, to the
       park, play school, play frisbee, play ball, or go to the Olympic
       Fun Center, a roller skating facility. Discipline in [Father’s]
       house is time out or a smack on the butt and [Mother]
       testified to relying on timeouts. No evidence was presented
       as to any physical abuse of the children by any party.

       Other than one PFA to be discussed hereinbelow, no evidence
       was presented as to any physical abuse between the parties
       and in fact, [Mother] specifically stated [Father] was not
       physically abusive. Mother admitted [Father] loves the
       children.

       Father testified [Mother] is a great mother and has always
       had the best interest of the children at heart until her recent
       decision to relocate to [Lee's Summit, Missouri]. At the time
       of the children's birth, [Father] worked full-time and [Mother]

                                    -2-
J-S41017-23

       worked part-time. Therefore, [Mother] undertook most of
       the duties with the children although [Father] cooked and
       helped with diapers.

       Father did know the name of the children's dentist but
       incorrectly identified the children's pediatrician. When the
       parties were together [Mother] primarily took the children to
       the doctors and dentist and tended to them when they were
       ill. The children tend to come to [Mother] for emotional
       support. Father did not know the names of the teachers [and
       did not make any attempt to] call the school to find out. He
       indicated there was no need because the children do well in
       school. Father acknowledges there is probably an "app" that
       would allow him to have information regarding the children's
       extracurricular school activities but he had not investigated
       same.

       Father indicated he did not attend children's events because
       he did not have notice or had to work. The court notes
       [Father] did not utilize the ability for a school "app" to
       educate himself. Father admits he has not gone to many of
       the children's medical appointments. Mother has on at least
       one occasion sent [Father] a video of the child's
       extracurricular school activity.

       C.L. played baseball for two (2) years. Father coached the
       first year and attended all practices and games the second
       year. The child did not play a third year because [Mother]
       would not commit to make sure the child was there and is
       not playing this year because [Mother] will not commit as a
       result of her desire to move to [Lee's Summit, Missouri] with
       the children.

       The controlling custody order is of November 10, 2022. The
       order provides the parties share joint legal custody with
       [Mother] exercising primary physical custody.         Father's
       partial custody is on a "week one" and "week two" basis.
       Week one [Father] has the children from Sunday at 3:00 p.m.
       until Tuesday morning until they are put on the school bus or
       returned to [Mother] at 9:00 a.m. Week two [Father] has
       the children from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until the children are
       placed on the bus or return to mother at 9:00 a.m. on
       Monday morning.

                                   -3-
J-S41017-23

       During Week two [Father] also exercises custody from
       Thursday after school until Friday morning when the children
       are placed on the school bus or return to [Mother] at 9:00
       a.m.    This order provides Thanksgiving visitation with
       [Mother] from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and [Father] from 4:00
       p.m.

       In support of [Father’s] case, in addition to his testimony, he
       presented the testimony of his mother, Marsha Leytrick, his
       [sister-in-law], Susan Leytrick and his aunt, Susan
       Dellapiazza. Mother presented the testimony of herself, as
       well as her fiancé, Jason Atkinson, and her father, Paul
       Sereda. All witnesses which addressed [Father’s] drinking
       agreed [Father] had a moderate to severe drinking problem
       prior to March 2022. Father likewise agreed. Father drank
       approximately [eight to 12] cans [of] beer on a daily basis.
       All evidence indicated [Father’s] drinking occurred after work,
       and while at the home. Father voluntarily went to rehab
       because [Mother] threatened she would move away and he
       would never see the children again. Father successfully
       completed a [14] day rehab at Banyon Treatment Facility in
       March 2022. Father's "sober date" is March 21, 2022. Father
       stated he has an occasional urge to drink, but not very often.
       When he does, he makes a phone call or attends a meeting.

       All of [Father’s] witnesses testified since rehab [Father] has
       not consumed any alcohol in any manner. To maintain his
       sobriety [Father] reads "the big book," attends meetings,
       attends speaker meetings, and talks with a woman that has
       over a decade of sobriety.

       Paternal grandmother testified since [Father’s] rehab there
       has been a 100% change, he is 100% active in the children's
       lives, spends time with the children playing garage hockey,
       swimming, and other activities.       Paternal grandmother
       indicated no concern for the children's safety in [Father’s]
       custody, no evidence of a relapse, and they talk daily.
       Paternal grandmother indicated when [Father] was drinking
       you could tell by his eyes, his more "mellow" attitude, but
       she did not notice a change in his speech.

       Father's [sister-in-law], Susan Leytrick, indicated prior to
       rehab [Father’s] drinking would render him lethargic, slurred
       speech and his demeanor would be different and essentially

                                    -4-
J-S41017-23

       more isolated. She sees [Father] on an occasional basis.
       Since rehab there has been no evidence of drinking or alcohol
       issues.

       Father's aunt, Susan Dellapiazza, indicated she was able to
       tell when [Father] had been drinking because of his red face,
       not eating, slurring speech, and isolating. She has seen no
       evidence since [Father’s] rehab of drinking or any evidence
       of alcohol whatsoever. She has no safety concerns regarding
       the children being in [Father’s] care and no doubt [Father] is
       no longer drinking.

       Mother testified she believes [Father] continues to drink.
       However, the court does not find this testimony credible.
       Mother stated as a result of being together for [22] years she
       knows what [Father] sounds like when he is drunk and even
       in the last week, and multiple other times, she believes he
       has sounded drunk on phone calls with the children.
       However, when [Mother] requested the police to perform a
       welfare check as a result of her suspicions, the police took no
       action and did not remove the children from [Father’s] care.
       Additionally, [Mother] testified the minor children told her
       [that Father “said that there was water in his beer can.”]
       However, in addition to said testimony being hearsay, the
       children did not testify to same. Mother also alleged [Father]
       continues to drink based on a photograph, which was not
       admitted into evidence, allegedly containing a beer can within
       said photograph. Said evidence is insufficient to find [Father]
       continues to drink, or more importantly, any alcohol usage is
       a danger to the children.

       Of concern to this court is [Father’s] decision to unilaterally
       remove himself from depression/anxiety medications. It is
       this court's intent to order [Father] to schedule an evaluation,
       and to comply with any recommendations regarding
       treatment and medications. During [Father’s] rehabilitation
       a physician ordered medication for depression and anxiety.
       This medication included one medicine to be taken one time
       daily, and a second medication to be taken [one to four]
       times a day, if needed. Father unilaterally removed himself
       from the medications in the last month or two without
       consulting, informing, or involving a physician.

                                    -5-
J-S41017-23

       In approximately September 2022 [Mother] requested a PFA
       order on behalf of herself and the children. Following a
       hearing on September 21, 2022 [the trial] court granted a
       [six] month PFA order with regard to [Mother] and denied the
       order with regard to the children.

       Mother alleged in the [PFA] petition, in relevant part, through
       the course of an argument "[Father] flung the door open so
       forcefully, that the door knob hit [Mother] and knocked her
       down." Mother alleged this caused a bruise on her hip.

       The petition also alleged the children are scared of [Father].
       During the course of the instant proceedings [Mother]
       indicated regarding the PFA there was an argument, about
       custody of the children, and during the course of the
       argument [Father] pushed through an unlocked door and the
       door hit her in the hip. Mother alleged the door left a bruise
       "for weeks." Father testified he did not force the door open
       but rather placed his foot in the door to prevent [Mother]
       from closing it and he believed [Mother] fell into the door.

       The court notes despite the allegations in the PFA petition the
       children were afraid of [Father], the children testified on
       September 21, 2022 in the course of the PFA hearing. At that
       time, V.L., was [six] years old, and indicated [Father] does
       "grab her by her hands or her arms and that it hurts" when
       she is not listening. Despite [Mother’s] testimony she only
       uses time out, V.L. through the course of the PFA hearing
       testified [Mother] smacks her on the butt "sometimes" and
       that [Father] "does it all the time." When this court asked
       whether [Father] ever says anything that makes V.L. afraid
       of him, she limited her response to an incident in which she
       believed [Father] forced her to "eat a pill." When the [trial
       court] followed up asking if [Father] had ever done or said
       anything that makes her afraid V.L. indicated no. V.L.
       specifically testified, "if [Father] didn't make me eat the pill I
       wouldn't be scared of him."

       C.L. testified regarding the "pill" incident indicating [Father]
       attempted to have V.L. take an adult Advil as opposed to a
       small Advil. C.L. also testified sometimes [Father] says if the
       child calls [Mother] he would smack the child which "makes
       me feel a little bit scared." C.L. indicated [Father] has never
       actually smacked the child.           C.L. indicated [Mother]

                                     -6-
J-S41017-23

       "sometimes she grabs my arm" when he is not listening
       essentially pinching his wrist. C.L. indicated [Father] was
       "way more scary because he screams really loud." Although
       child indicated [Father] makes "threats," child was unable to
       produce any examples. C.L. testified with regard to the
       "door" incident. The parents were arguing about [Father]
       taking children for custody time, [Mother] tried to shut the
       door and [Father] "like pushed it and then slammed it into
       my mom." Father believes his relationship with C.L. was
       awesome and they were both very active and like outside.
       Father's relationship with V.L. was very good and they plant
       flowers, cook and watch movies.

       The [trial court] believes both parents have inappropriately
       talked with the children regarding the potential move to Lee's
       Summit[, Missouri]. The [trial court] finds [Mother]
       improperly influenced the children to desire to move to Lee's
       Summit. V.L. testified through the course of the instant
       proceedings the hearing was about moving to Kansas City
       and [Mother] told her that. V.L. testified they had been to
       Kansas City on [two] occasions. V.L. indicated the trip to
       Kansas City was like a vacation. V.L. testified she wanted to
       do gymnastics in Kansas City but did not know gymnastics
       were available in Mercer County. The child also stated she
       did not know what gymnastics were. Mother told V.L. there
       was gymnastics in Kansas City but did not tell her there was
       gymnastics in the area.

       V.L. also wished to go to Kansas City because there is a roller
       coaster. When asked whether V.L. preferred to live in Grove
       City or Kansas City she indicated Kansas City.             Her
       explanation was it was a bigger city. When the Court asked
       her to compare Kansas City to Pittsburgh, she indicated
       "Kansas City is way better" and it was because she was going
       to get new friends. When the [trial court] inquired as to
       whether V.L. would be okay staying in Grove City[, V.L.
       responded that] "it would have been okay, I mean no." When
       asked why the child twice simply stated she wanted to move
       to Kansas City, she indicated it is fun there. When V.L. was
       asked how often [Mother] talks to the child about Kansas City
       the child indicated "a little often." The child indicated if
       [Mother] was not able to go to Kansas City, [Mother] would
       be "really sad and she'll cry" and she will not be able to talk
       to her fiancé. V.L. also indicated [Mother], at least [three]

                                    -7-
J-S41017-23

       times, told her she would cry if she could not go to Kansas
       City. V.L. also indicated [Father] told her they are not
       moving.

       C.L. indicated he was at the hearing because [Mother]
       wanted to move to Kansas City and he felt really good about
       it because he did not like going back and forth between his
       parent's houses and wanted to stay at [one] place. C.L.
       indicated he does not like his [Father’s] house because he
       does not feel safe to go there but indicated [Father] has never
       hurt him, only hurts his feelings. C.L. indicated he would be
       okay only seeing his [Father] once or twice a year. When the
       Court inquired whether [Mother] told C.L. why she wants to
       move to Kansas City he indicated because she has a better
       job there, she met a really nice man there that helps her and
       it would be a better life for us. In fact, C.L. indicated [Mother]
       told him that the morning of the hearing.

       C.L. also indicated [Mother] told him if the [court] does not
       approve the move to Kansas City "she would be really sad."
       C.L. alleges he hates going to [Father’s house], gets
       nauseous at [Father’s house], and sometimes cannot eat.
       When the court inquired as to why the child had earlier
       indicated he plays soccer, hockey and baseball at [Father’s]
       house he said "to buy some time." When the court inquired
       whether [Mother] had even spoken to the child about how
       often he should see his [Father], the child indicated "maybe
       every [five] weeks." However, the child then denied the
       conversation. The court notes [Mother’s] proposed visitation
       schedule is every [five] weeks. C.L. indicated Kansas City
       was preferable because [Mother] has a better job, there are
       “way better schools,” “way better soccer and football
       leagues” and “way better friends and stuff.” When the
       [court] inquired as to whether [Mother] told C.L. how she
       would feel if she could not move to Kansas City, he indicated
       she would cry "because she met a wonderful guy" and "he is
       the most amazing person." The move would allow "my mom
       can be happy every single day." He also indicated "my dad
       never treated my mom nice at all." The [court] notes some
       of the phrases used by C.L. do not seem the natural language
       of a [nine-year-old] child. Of note is [Mother] used the
       phrase that her fiancé was a "wonderful, caring man." The
       child also pointed out the [two] times they left Kansas City
       "my mom always cries because we have to leave."

                                     -8-
J-S41017-23

       The child indicated during the course of the instant
       proceedings on March 31, 2023 the incident with regard to
       the PFA "made me feel that I never want to see him again. I
       never want to care for him. He has hurt my mom so many
       times, her feelings. Sometimes when he hurts her feelings,
       he hurts mine." Interestingly, only a few weeks after the
       incident in September 2022 both children indicated they
       would have no problem going to [Father’s] house again after
       a [two] week pause of visitation. C.L. indicated when he
       moves to Kansas City he will play pickleball but he does not
       play pickleball here because [Mother] told them they do not
       have it here. C.L. indicated his plan is to play sports in
       Kansas City but if he did not go to Kansas City he would
       probably not play sports here but he cannot answer why.

       Father credibly testified he had great difficulty visiting the
       children prior to a court order or gaining any amount of time
       beyond the court order. Father credibly testified "it is always
       a struggle to get the kids" and when [Mother] works she
       takes the children to her parents rather than offering the time
       to [Father]. Father acknowledged in the last approximate
       month there have been [two] times [Mother] has agreed to
       extra time. One was the weekend of the hearing and the
       other was to allow [Father] to take C.L. hunting. Subsequent
       testimony established the hunting day was in exchange for
       [Father’s] agreement to bring the children to a church event
       on Easter day. The children were at an Easter program at
       the maternal grandparent's church. Father agreed to bring
       the children for breakfast to the church and allow them to
       participate in the program, which occurred. Mother and her
       parents were in attendance. This credible testimony is
       contrary to [Mother’s] testimony [Father] did not allow the
       children to see her at all this Easter.

       Both parties threaten to, or actually, call the police on each
       other. Father wished [for] the children on Sunday at 9:00
       a.m.[,] despite the fact the court order provided he did not
       receive custody until 3:00 p.m. on Sundays and he
       threatened to call the police. Mother called the police for a
       welfare check based on her alleged belief [Father] was under
       the influence and because [Father] was not allowing the
       children to talk to her "without supervision."

                                    -9-
J-S41017-23

       By agreement of the parties [the trial court] issued an order
       on December 22, 2022 providing the children to be with
       [Father] from December 22, 2022 after school, or 5:00 p.m.,
       whichever is earlier, until 10:30 a.m. on Sunday. Mother
       then retained custody until January 2, 2023. Father did not
       appear at the scheduled exchange on Christmas Day at 10:30
       a.m. requiring [Mother] to go to [Father’s] home to retrieve
       the children. Father's explanations were inconsistent and
       lacked credibility. It was clear to the court [Father was]
       determined to simply disregard the court order.

       Father's mother, Marsha Leytrick credibly testified she
       usually sees the subject children weekly, sometimes babysits
       the children and visits with the children at her home. She
       lives approximately an hour and half away from [Father’s]
       residence[.] Her observation of the children and [Father’s]
       interaction indicate "a lot of love" and she sees no signs of
       friction or fear. The witness testified, and it is clear to the
       [court], the parties do not get along well at all.

       Father presented the testimony of his aunt, Susan
       Dellapiazza. The witness testified she is close with [Father],
       they see each other approximately twice a month, mostly at
       maternal grandmother's house in Bridgeville. The witness
       lives close to maternal grandmother. She believes [Father]
       is an outstanding and good father, he is very active, they fish,
       play garage hockey, cook and walk the dog. The witness
       described [Father] and children as close.         The witness
       believed [Father] and children were a "very close unit."

       Mother testified with regard to her desire to move to Lee's
       Summit, Missouri, a suburb of Kansas City.         Although
       [Mother’s] testimony couched the move for the benefit of the
       children, it is clear the sole basis for the move is her
       engagement to Jason Atkinson ("fiancé"). The relationship of
       [Mother] and fiancé began in March 2022 online and they first
       met in person in Missouri on March 24, 2022.

       Initially the parties visited once a month and now visit every
       [two to three] weeks. On her first visit to Missouri she fell in
       love with the city. Mother testified the children did not meet
       fiancé until the end of 2022. This is contrary to testimony
       the children met the fiancé in August of 2022.

                                   - 10 -
J-S41017-23

       Mother made the decision at the end of 2022 or the beginning
       of 2023 to move to Lee's Summit. Lee's Summit is an
       approximate [12-hour] drive or [two-and-one-half] hour
       flight from the parties' current residences. The houses
       [Mother] proposes to rent in Lee's Summit are of a suburban
       nature with yards.     The homes currently identified by
       [Mother] are approximately [one] block from fiancé, will be
       rented, and each has [four] bedrooms. It is [Mother’s] plan
       to wed fiancé in October 2023, which she plans to do
       regardless of whether this court approves the relocation.

       Upon the marriage it is [Mother’s] belief her fiancé and his
       [four] children will move in to the home she is renting.
       [Mother] initially testified the children did not meet her fiancé
       until the end of 2022 although subsequent testimony
       established the first trip with the children to Kansas City was
       in August 2022 and that Christmas 2022 was the second trip.
       Mother indicated the [four] bedroom home can be rented for
       approximately $1,200.00 per month and her current rent for
       an apartment is $750.00 per month. Mother indicated if the
       court denies relocation she is unsure whether she will move
       to Kansas City but the marriage will still occur.

       Mother testified in an incredible fashion she did not believe
       the move the Kansas City would affect the children's
       relationship with [Father] in any way because of technology.
       Mother did acknowledge [Father] would be unable to attend
       extracurricular or sporting activities, but alleged [Father] had
       never done so before. However, this court notes [Father]
       coached C.L. in baseball one year and in his second year
       attended all practices and games. When questioned whether
       [Mother’s] proposed partial visitation with [Father] if the
       move is approved would affect her bond with children if the
       schedule was flipped, [Mother] was unsure.

       Mother attempted to couch her desire to move to Kansas City
       with her fiancé as for the benefit of the children as it would
       show the children stability, emotional stability, and they
       would see a lifelong stable partnership between [Mother] and
       her fiancé. Mother testified she believes it important for the
       children to see her with a dependable and supportive partner.
       Mother believes it's very important for the children to see
       "love between a couple."

                                    - 11 -
J-S41017-23

       Mother testified education is very important and the kids are
       doing very well at Grove City. Mother further testified the
       school district in Kansas City is rated "A+" and that Grove
       City Schools are "B+". Mother was unable to provide any
       details other than an internet search to support the ratings.
       Mother acknowledged the class sizes appeared to be the
       same and there was no meaningful difference between the
       school districts. All parties agreed the children do well in
       school.

       Mother currently makes $48.00/hour working for a company
       called "clipboard". She indicated this company is present in
       her proposed relocation and she would make $90.00/hour.
       Mother works per diem approximately [20] hours per week.
       Mother did not check whether there is higher pay available in
       any other cities other than Kansas City. Mother did not
       research any other school districts or schools in other cities,
       but rather chose the Lee's Summit Schools because that's
       where her fiancé’s children attend.

       Mother admitted she only researched the Lee's Summit
       School District after she decided to relocate. Mother is an
       RN. In Kansas City she should be able to obtain her BSN and
       work towards her goal of being a flight nurse at Ottawa
       University. Mother credibly testified this opportunity was not
       as easily available in her current location as the Ottawa
       program would be approximately [15] minutes from her
       home and any such programs in Pennsylvania would be at
       least [one] hour[] from her home.

       Mother testified in Kansas City, her fiancé, and her fiancé’s
       [two] sisters would be available for childcare. Mother also
       testified childcare would not be necessary as fiancé makes
       significantly more money and therefore, she could work less.
       Mother believed her RN license would easily transfer and her
       Pennsylvania license is sufficient to allow her to work in
       Missouri.

       Mother asserted the childcare availability is particularly
       important with regard to the move as [Father] is not
       dependable and does not provide childcare and in fact at the
       last minute will cancel his commitments. The court notes the
       availability of maternal grandmother to babysit as well as
       daycares in the Grove City area. The court also notes the

                                   - 12 -
J-S41017-23

       children have a strong bond with the maternal grandmother
       and they see her every couple weekends.

       Mother's fiancé is heavily involved in the church and they plan
       on having counseling for couples with blended families
       following the move. Mother proposes the court authorize the
       relocation to Kansas City area and grant her primary physical
       custody subject to [Father’s] partial custody rights. Mother
       proposes [Father’s] custody rights be comprised of [two]
       weeks in the beginning and end of summer as well as during
       the remainder of the year, [Mother] will return for a long
       weekend every [five] weeks. Mother also proposes a week
       of partial custody with [Father] at Easter and a week at
       Christmas time. Mother indicated she will pay all airfare for
       her and the children to return, she will then stay in the area
       visiting her family and friends, and then return with the
       children at the conclusion of each partial custody of [Father].

       Mother presented the testimony of her fiancé, Jason
       Atkinson. The witness lives in Lee's Summit, Missouri with his
       [four] children, ages [14, 11, eight, and six]. He has never
       committed a crime, been subject of a restraining order, been
       a party to a Children & Youth Services investigation, nor is he
       subject to any physical disability or illness that prevents
       caring for children including mental illnesses or disabilities.
       [Fiancé] is Director of Business Development for a financial
       advisor and works 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
       Friday.

       [Fiancé] confirms the parties began talking on Twitter before
       visiting in person which they have done at least a dozen
       times. Mother and fiancé have visited both in Kansas City
       and in Pennsylvania and speak [two to three] hours a day, at
       least, on the phone. During the subject children's visit at
       Christmas 2022 they went to the park, played video games
       together, and played baseball. The parties also went to a golf
       driving range known as Top Golf, went to a nephew's wedding
       and "had a really fun time." [Fiancé] and C.L. played "a little
       bit" of pickleball in Kansas City. It is clear to the court fiancé
       has a very strong affection for both children.

       [Fiancé] characterized the relationship between the children
       and [Mother] as very good. He indicated she is “the most
       fantastic mother I've ever met.” [Fiancé] described the

                                    - 13 -
J-S41017-23

       neighborhood as houses of approximately 1,500 square feet,
       single family homes, and in the $200,000 range.

       [Fiancé] is unable to relocate here due to the nature of his
       job especially in comparison to mother's ability to easily
       relocate as an RN. [Fiancé] added "obviously, I have [four]
       kids of my own, as well."

       Mother also presented the testimony of her father, Paul
       Sereda. The witness lives in Greenville, Pennsylvania which
       is approximately [35] minutes from the [parties’] current
       location.

       The witness owns a tavern. He sees the subject children
       usually a couple times a week and at least, every other
       weekend. They go to the park which is right next door to his
       residence, play ball, ride on the side by side, or go through
       the woods, go to fairs, horseback riding, and around farms.
       He also teaches C.L. about gun safety. Since the parties'
       separation witness has not observed [Father] around the
       children. Witness sees the children a lot more in the summer.
       Witness has taught V.L. how to play guitar and maternal
       grandmother has taught the children some piano.

       Both the maternal grandparents spend a lot of time with the
       children and have a very close bond. Witness described
       [Mother’s] relationship with the children as very caring and
       "a mother bear" and believe she is a wonderful mother. The
       children and grandparents are very attached and close to
       each other.

       The subject children have [four] maternal cousins in the
       Pittsburgh area.      Witness believed [Father’s] primary
       deficiency in parenting was his alcohol consumption and the
       drinking prevented [Father] from engaging with or watching
       the children.

       Witness also called the police for a "welfare check" on
       [Father] and the children and to his knowledge the police took
       no action following said check.

       Mother has no relatives on either side of the family in the
       Kansas City area.

                                   - 14 -
J-S41017-23

        The children enjoy going to school in the Grove City School
        District.   The court appointed David Gloss, Esquire as
        Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") for the children. In addition to a
        report, which is admitted into evidence, the GAL testified in
        these proceedings. It was the GAL's conclusion relocation
        was not in the best interest of the children. The GAL further
        believed the evidence was clear the children had "been
        prepared by the mother" for the meeting with the GAL and
        led to believe life in Missouri is "nirvana". As examples the
        GAL pointed out V.L. desired to move to Missouri to ride a yet
        to be built roller coaster and C.L.'s mimicking of [Mother’s]
        statements. The GAL further stated that C.L., when pressed,
        will admit he has had good times at [Father’s] house.

        The GAL summarized his position by stating the children were
        born and raised in the area, all friendships and family are in
        the Grove City area, no family in Kansas City, all
        grandparents are within close proximity to Mercer County and
        a belief that an 850 mile move will significantly damage the
        relationship with [Father].         The GAL's investigation
        determined both the children and the school district were
        aware the parent's divorce was "a bad situation" and [Father]
        and GAL believed that C.L. and [Father] should participate in
        joint therapy. The GAL saw no enhancement to the children's
        lives if relocation was granted.

        Father believes counseling between he and C.L. is
        appropriate as well as the parties should undertake co-
        parenting classes. Father is "extremely happy" when he has
        his children and does not believe there is any issue with their
        relationship other than [Mother’s] interference.        Father
        indicated he does not receive the [court-ordered] phone calls
        from the children while they are in [Mother’s] custody.

        Father believes the relationship with the children has grown
        over the last year and the relocation would "devastate" the
        relationship he and his family have with the children. Father
        also believed it would be "horrible" to move the children away
        from their family, friends, and dog. Father believes he should
        have 50/50 custody, and at a minimum, the children should
        be with him and not the maternal grandparents when mother
        works.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/22, at 1-22.

                                    - 15 -
J-S41017-23

      On December 20, 2022, Mother filed her petition to relocate from Grove

City, Pennsylvania to Lee’s Summit, Missouri.        See Mother’s Petition to

Relocate, 12/20/22, at 1-2. Father opposed the petition and the trial court

held a hearing on the matter.     On June 14, 2023, the trial court filed its

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order in the case, where it denied

Mother’s petition to relocate and modified the existing child custody order.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. See Trial Court Opinion and Order,

6/14/23, at 1-45. She raises one claim on appeal:

        Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law or abused
        its discretion in denying [Mother’s] petition for relocation due
        to [] the court finding that the children’s relationship with
        [Father] would deteriorate while ignoring the factors of
        relocation[] and the best interest of the children would be
        with [Mother] relocating and [Father] having more time
        under [Mother’s] proposal than the ordered custody[?]

Mother’s Brief at 5.

      Our scope and standard of review of custody determinations are

well-settled.

        Our scope [of review] is of the broadest type and our
        standard [or review] is abuse of discretion. This Court 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, this
        Court must defer to the trial [court that] presided over the
        proceedings and[,] thus[,] viewed the witnesses [firsthand].
        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. We may reject the
        conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of

                                     - 16 -
J-S41017-23

        law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings
        of the trial court.

                                      ...

        With any child custody case, this Court has long stated that
        the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. This
        standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all [] the
        factors that may legitimately affect the physical, intellectual,
        moral and spiritual well-being of the child. When a custody
        dispute involves a request by a party to relocate, we have
        explained, there is no black[-]letter formula that easily
        resolves relocation disputes[. R]ather, custody disputes are
        delicate issues that must be handled on a case-by-case basis.

C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417, 421 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quotation marks,

citations, and original brackets omitted).

      Section 5337(h) of the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code, 23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, sets forth the factors that a trial court must consider,

“giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the

child[,]” in determining whether to grant, or deny, a petition for proposed

relocation. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). Those factors are as follows:

        (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.

                                     - 17 -
J-S41017-23

        (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.

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

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(1-10). “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” Section 5337(h). 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 5337(i)(1). “Each 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.A. § 5337(i)(2).

      When the non-relocating party objects to both the relocation, as well as

the proposed modification of custody in a counter-affidavit, the trial court, in

addition to considering the ten factors enumerated in Section 5337(h), must

also consider the sixteen custody factors set forth in Section 5328(a) before

                                     - 18 -
J-S41017-23

granting relocation and modifying an existing custody order.          A.M.S. v.

M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 836 (Pa. Super. 2013). Those factors are as follows:

        (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 [23 Pa.C.S.A. §] 5329.1(a)
        (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.

        (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.

                                     - 19 -
J-S41017-23

        (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.A. § 5328(a)(1-16).

      In the case at bar, the trial court carefully considered the ten factors of

Section 5337(h) in denying Mother’s relocation petition and the sixteen factors

of Section 5328(a) in modifying custody. On appeal, Mother takes issue with

the trial court’s credibility determinations, as well as the weight the trial court

placed on certain evidence and certain factors when it denied her relocation

petition. See Mother’s Brief at 13-19. However, this Court cannot disturb a

trial court's factual findings or its credibility and weight determinations absent

a finding that the trial court abused its discretion. C.M.K., 45 A.3d at 421.

Here, a review of the trial court’s thorough and careful June 14, 2023 opinion

demonstrates that there has been no such abuse. Therefore, after reviewing

the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion

of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Ronald D. Amrhein, Jr., we

                                      - 20 -
J-S41017-23

conclude that Mother is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons

expressed in Judge Amrhein’s June 14, 2023 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on

the basis of Judge Amrhein’s opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future

filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall

attach a copy of Judge Amrhein’s June 14, 2023 opinion.

      Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

 12/21/2023

                                     - 21 -
                                                                   Circulated 12/06/2023 02:17 PM
                                                                  37 -FINDINGS OF FACT
                      .Et it ieECER
                    " couNTY 4'

                   22 JUN I% AMIE 36
                        RUTH A. BICE
                      pROTONOTARY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                         CIVIL ACTION

ADAM LEYTRICK,
                       Plaintiff

                       VS.                     : No. 2022-2278

STEPHANIE LEYTRICK,
                       Defendant

          FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

       Currently before this Court is Plaintiff/Father's Motion to Modify Custody

requesting joint physical custody as well as Defendant/Mother's Request to Relocate to

Lee's Summit, Missouri. The Court presided over hearings on March 31, 2023 and May

31, 2023. The Court also notes the minor children wre
                                                    e interviewed on September 21,

2022 regarding a Protection from Abuse ("PFA") action filed by Mother against Father

which is related to the instant proceedings.

                                   FINDINGS OF FACT

       Mother, Stephanie Leytrick, currently resides at 507Stewart Avenue, Grove

City, Mercer County, Pennsylvania 16127 with the children C.L., 9 years old, and V.L., 7

years old. Father is forty-four (44) years old and also resides in Grove City,

Pennsylvania. Father resides alone, other than when the subject children are with him.
                                                                  37-FINDINGS OF FACT

       Father has lived in the Grove City area for approximately fourteen (14) years and

the children have lived in the Grove City area their entire lives. The parties were married

April 24, 2010. There is a dispute, and it is unclear, when the parties separated. Mother

alleged both March 2022 as well as September 2022 while father alleged January 2022.

All parties agreed since separation the children have resided primarily with mother.

       Father was previously employed as a meat cutter at Giant Eagle in New Castle,

Pennsylvania. He is currently unemployed but the issue is being grieved through the

union process. Mother works for an agency known as "clipboard" and is an RN. She

works primarily in long term care facilities in Beaver and Clarion Counties. Mother

currently makes $48.00/hour. Mother works approximately twenty (20) hours per week.

       Mother's parents live approximately forty-five (45) minutes from her current

location as does her brother. She also has four (4) nieces and nephews, ranging in age

from four (4) to eleven (II),

       Father's family is comprised of sixty-one (6I) people from the generation of his

parents, himself, and his children. The court notes the subject children are close with their

paternal cousins. Mother admitted the children have a good relationship with their

maternal grandparents as well as with paternal grandmother.

       All witnesses agreed the children are well-behaved, do well in school, and are

active. When with father, the children play with other kids in his neighborhood, C.L.

plays garage hockey with his father, they go on walks, or hunting, father plants flowers,
                     '
                                                                                              2
                                                                  37-FINDINGS OF FA

watches movies and cooks with V.L. and they all go swimming in the pool. V.L likes to

sing and dance. When the children are with mother they go bowling, to the park, play

school, play frisbee, play ball, or go to the Olympic Fun Center, a roller skating facility.

Discipline in father's house is time out or a smack on the butt and mother testified to

relying on timeouts. No evidence was presented as to any physical abuse of the children

by any party.

       Other than one PFA to be discussed hereinbelow, no evidence was presented as to

any physical abuse between the parties and in fact, mother specifically stated father was

not physically abusive. Mother admitted father loves the children.

       Father testified mother is a great mother and has always had the best interest of

the children at heart until her recent decision to relocate to Lee's Summit. At the time of

the children's birth, father worked full-time and mother worked part-time. Therefore,

mother undertook most of the duties with the children although father cooked and helped

with diapers.

       Father did know the name of the children's dentist but incorrectly identified the

children's pediatrician. When the parties were together mother primarily took the

children to the doctors and dentist and tended to them when they were ill. The children

tend to come to mother for emotional support. Father did not know the names of the

teachers or call the school to find out. He indicated there was no need because the

children do well in school. Father acknowledges there is probably an "app" that would
                                                                                               3
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OFF           T

allow him to have information regarding the children's extracurricular school activities

but he had not investigated same.

        Father indicated he did not attend children's events because he did not have noti

or had to work. The court notes father did not utilize the ability for a school "app" to

educate himself. Father admits he has not gone to many of the children's medical

appointments. Mother has on at least one occasion sent father a video of the child's

extracurricular school activity.

       C.L. played baseball for two (2) years. Father coached the first year and attended

all practices and games the second year. The child did not-play a third year because

mother would not commit to make sure the child was there and is not playing this year

because mother will not commit as a result of her desire to move to Lee's Summit with

the children.

       The controlling custody order is of November 10, 2022. The order provides the

parties share joint legal custody with mother exercising primary physical custody.

Father's partial custody is on a "week one" and "week two" basis. Week one father has

the children from Sunday at 3:00 p.m. until Tuesday morning until they are put on the

school bus or returned to mother at 9:00 a.m. Week two father has the children from

Saturday at 9:00 a.m. untiJ the children are placed on the bus or return to mother at 9:00

a.m. on Monday morning.
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF F CT

       During Week two father also exercises custody from Thursday after school until

Friday morning when the children are placed on the school bus or return to mother at

9:00 a.m. This order provides Thanksgiving visitation with mother from 9:00 a.m. to 4:

p.m. and father from 4:00 p.m.

       In support of father's case, in addition to his testimony, he presented the

testimony of his mother, Marsha Leytrick, his sister in law, Susan Leytrick and his aunt,

Susan Dellapiazza. Mother presented the testimony of herself, as well as her fianc~, Jaso

Atkinson, and her father, Paul Sereda. All witnesses which addressed father's drinking

agreed father had a moderate to severe drinking problem prior to March 2022. Father

likewise agreed. Father drank approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) cans a beer on a

daily basis. All evidence indicated father's drinking occurred after work, and while at the

home. Father voluntarily went to rehab because mother threatened she would move away

and he would never see the children again. Father successfully completed a fourteen ( 14)

day rehab at Banyon Treatment Facility in March 2022. Father's "sober date" is March

21, 2022. Father stated he has an occasional urge to drink, but not very often. When he

does, he makes a phone call or attends a meeting.

       All of father's witnesses testified since rehab father has not consumed any alcohol

in any manner. To maintain his sobriety father reads "the big book", attends meetings.

attends speaker meetings, and talks with a woman that has over a decade of sobriety.

                                                                                            5
                                                                  37 -FINDINGS OF FACT

        Paternal grandmother testified since father's rehab there has been a 100% change,

he is 100% active in the children's lives, spends time with the children playing garage

hockey, swimming, and other activities. Paternal grandmother indicated no concer for

the children's safety in father's custody, no evidence of a relapse, and they talk daily.

Paternal grandmother indicated when father was drinking you could tell by his eyes, his

more "mellow" attitude, but she did not notice a change in his speech.

        Father's sister in law, Susan Leytrick, indicated prior to rehab father's drinking

would render him lethargic, slurred speech and his demeanor would be different and

essentially more isolated. She sees father on an occasional basis. Since rehab there has

been no evidence of drinking or alcohol issues.

        Father's aunt, Susan Dellapiazza, indicated she was able to tell when father had

been drinking because of his red face, not eating, slurring speech, and isolating. She has

seen no evidence since father's rehab of drinking or any evidence of alcohol whatsoever.

She has no safety concerns regarding the children being in father's care and no doubt

father is no longer drinking.

        Mother testified she believes father continues to drink. However, the court does

not find this testimony credible. Mother stated as a result of being together for twenty-

two (22) years she knows what father sounds like when he is drunk and even in the last

week, and multiple other times, she believes he has sounded drunk on phone calls with

the children. However, when mother requested the police to perform a welfare check as a

                                                                                             6
                                                                  37 - FINDINGS OF FA T

result of her suspicions, the police took no action and did not remove the children from

father's care. Additionally, mother testified the minor children told her father indicated h

had water in a beer can. However, in addition to said testimony being hearsay, the

children did not testify to same. Mother also alleged father continues to drink based on a

photograph, which was not admitted into evidence, allegedly containing a beer can within

said photograph. Said evidence is insufficient to find father continues to drink, or more

importantly, any alcohol usage is a danger to the children.

       Of concern to this court is father's decision to unilaterally remove himself from

depression/anxiety medications. It is this court's intent to order father to schedule an

evaluation, and to comply with any recommendations regarding treatment and

medications. During father's rehabilitation a physician ordered medication for depression

and anxiety. This medication included one medicine to be taken one time daily, and a

second medication to be taken one (1) to four (4) times a day, if needed. Father

unilaterally removed himself from the medications in the last month or two without

consulting, informing, or involving a physician,

       In approximately September 2022 mother requested a PFA order on behalf of

herself and the children. Following a hearing on September 21, 2022 this court granted a

six (6) month PFA order with regard to mother and denied the order with regard to the

children.

                                                                                               7
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OF F CT

        Mother alleged in the petition, in relevant part, through the course of an argument

"Defendant [father] flung the door open so forcefully, that the door knob hit the Plaintiff

[mother] and knocked her down". Mother alleged this caused a bruise on her hip.

        The petition also alleged the children are scared of the defendant [father]. During

the course of the instant proceedings mother indicated regarding the PFA there was an

argument, about custody of the children, and during the course of the argument father

pushed through an unlocked door and the door hit her in the hip. Mother alleged the door

left a bruise "for weeks". Father testified he did not force the door open but rather placed

his foot in the door to prevent mother from closing it and he believed mother fell into the

door.

        The court notes despite the allegations in the PFA petition the children were

afraid of father, the children testified on September 21, 2022 in the course of the PFA

hearing. At that time, V.L., was six (6) years old, and indicated father does "grab her by

her hands or her arms and that it hurts" when she is not listening. Despite mother's

testimony she only uses time out, V.L. through the course of the PFA hearing testified
         '
mother smacks her on the butt "sometimes" and that dad "does it all the time", When this

court asked whether father ever says anything that makes V.L. afraid of him, she limited

her response to an incident in which she believed father forced her to "eat a pill". When

the Court followed up asking if father had ever done or said anything that makes her

                                                                                               8
                                                                 37-FINDINGS OF FA

afraid V.L. indicated no. V. L. specifically testified, "if he[father] didn't make me eat th

pill I wouldn't be scared of him".

       C.L. testified regarding the "pill" incident indicating father attempted to have

V.L. take an adult Advil as opposed to a small Advil. C.L. also testified sometimes father

says if the child calls mother he would smack the child which "makes me feel a little bit

scared". C.L. indicated father has never actually smacked the child. C.L. indicated mothe

"sometimes she grabs my arm..." when he is not listening essentially pinching his wrist.

C.L. indicated dad was "way more scary because he screams really loud". Although child

indicated father makes "threats", child was unable to produce any examples. C.L.

testified with regard to the "door" incident. The parents were arguing about father taking

children for custody time, mother tried to shut the door and dad "like pushed it and then

slammed it into my mom". Father believes his relationship with C.L. was awesome and

they were both very active and like outside. Father's relationship with V.L. was very

good and they plant flowers, cook and watch movies.

       The Court believes both parents have inappropriately talked with the children

regarding the potential move to Lee's Summit. The Court finds mother improperly

influenced the children to desire to move to Lee's Summit. V.L. testified through the

course of the instant proceedings the hearing was about moving to Kansas City and mom

told her that. V.L. testified they had been to Kansas City on two (2) occasions. V.L.

indicated the trip to Kansas City was like a vacation. V.L. testified she wanted to do
                                                                                               9
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF F              'T

gymnastics in Kansas City but did not know gymnastics were available in Mercer

County. The child also stated she did not know what gymnastics were. Mother told V.L.

there was gymnastics in Kansas City but did not tell her there was gymnastics in the area.

       V.L. also wished to go to Kansas City because there is a roller coaster. When

asked whether V.L. preferred to live in Grove City or Kansas City she indicated Kansas

City. Her explanation was it was a bigger city. When the Court asked her to compare

Kansas City to Pittsburgh, she indicated "Kansas City is way better" and it was because

she was going to get new friends. When the Court inquired as to whether V.L. would be

okay staying in Grove City "it would have been okay, I mean no". When asked why the

child twice simply stated she wanted to move to Kansas City, she indicated it is fun there.

When V.L. was asked how often mother talks to the child about Kansas City the child

indicated "a little often". The child indicated if mother was not able to go to Kansas City,

mother would be "really sad and she'II cry" and she will not be able to talk to her fianc~.

V.L. also indicated mother, at least three (3) times, told her she would cry if she could not

go to Kansas City. V.L. also indicated father told her they are not moving.

       C.L. indicated he was at the hearing because his mother wanted to move to

Kansas City and he felt really good about it because he did not like going back and forth

between his parent's houses and wanted to stay at one (I) place. C.L. indicated he does

not like his father's house because he does not feel safe to go there but indicated father

has never hurt him, only hurts his feelings. C.L. indicated he would be okay only seeing

                                                                                             10
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF FAQ T

his father once or twice a year. When the Court inquired whether mother told C.L. why

she wants to move to Kansas Cty he indicated because she has a better job there, she met

a really nice man there that helps her and it would be a better life for us. In fact, C.L.

indicated mother told him that the morning of the hearing.

        C.L. also indicated mother told him if the Court does not approve the move to

Kansas City "she would be really sad". C.L. alleges he hates going to his father's, gets

nauseous at his father's, and sometimes cannot eat. When the court inquired as to why the

child had earlier indicated he plays soccer, hockey and baseball at father's house he said

"to buy some time". When the court inquired whether mother had even spoken to the

child about how often he should see his father, the child indicated "maybe every five (5)

weeks". However, the child then denied the conversation. The court notes mother's

proposed visitation schedule is every five (5) weeks. C.L. indicated Kansas City was

preferable because mom has a better job, there are "way better schools", "way better

soccer and football leagues" and "way better friends and stuff'. When the Court inquired

as to whether mother told C.L. how she would feel if she could not move to Kansas City,

he indicated she would cry "because she met a wonderful guy" and "he is the most

amazing person". The move would allow "my mom can be happy every single day". He

also indicated "my dad never treated my mom nice at all". The Court notes some of the

phrases used by C.L. do not seem the natural language of a nine (9) year old child. Of

note is mother used the phrase that her fianc~ was a "wonderful, caring man". The child
                                                                                             It
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF FACT

also pointed out the two (2) times they left Kansas City "my mom always cries because

we have to leave".

       The child indicated during the course of the instant proceedings on March 31,

2023 the incident with regard to the PFA "made me feel that I never want to see him

again. I never want to care for him. He has hurt my mom so many times, her feelings.

Sometimes when he hurts her feelings, he hurts mine." Interestingly, only a few weeks

after the incident in September 2022 both children indicated they would have no problem

going to father's house again after a two (2) week pause of visitation. C.L. indicated

when he moves to Kansas City he will play pickleball but he does not play pickleball he

because his mom told them they do not have it here. C.L. indicated his plan is to play

sports in Kansas City but if he did not go to Kansas City he would probably not play

sports here but he cannot answer why.

       Father credibly testified he had great difficulty visiting the children prior to a

court order or gaining any amount of time beyond the court order. Father credibly

testified "it is always a struggle to get the kids" and when mother works she takes the

children to her parents rather than offering the time to father. Father acknowledged in the

last approximate month there have been two (2) times mother has agreed to extra time.

One was the weekend of the hearing and the other was to allow father to take C.L.

hunting. Subsequent testimony established the hunting day was in exchange for father's

agreement to bring the children to a church event on Easter day. The children were at an
                                                                                            12
                                                                    37 -FINDINGS OFF CT

Easter program at the maternal grandparent's church. Father agreed to bring the children

for breakfast to the church and allow them to participate in the program, which occurred,

Mother and her parents were in attendance. This credible testimony is contrary to

mother's testimony father did not allow the children to see her at all this Easter.

        Both parties threaten to, or actually, call the police on each other. Father wished

the children on Sunday at 9:00 a.m. despite the fact the court order provided he did not

receive custody until 3:00 p.rn. on Sundays and he threatened to call the police. Mother

called the police for a welfare check based on her alleged belief father was under the

influence and because father was not allowing the children to talk to her "without

supervision".

       By agreement of the parties this court issued an order on December 22, 2022

providing the children to be with father from December 22, 2022 after school, or 5:00

p.m., whichever is earlier, until 10:30 a.m. on Sunday. Mother then retained custody until

January 2, 2023. Father did not appear at the scheduled exchange on Christmas Day at

10:30 a.m. requiring mother to go to father's home to retrieve the children. Father's

explanations were inconsistent and lacked credibility. It was clear to the court father

determined to simply disregard the court order.

       Father's mother, Marsha Leytrick credibly testified she usually sees the subject

children weekly, sometimes babysits the children and visits with the children at her

home. She lives approximately an hour and half away from father's residence, Her

                                                                                              13
                                                                    37 -FINDINGS OF FA

observation of the children and father's interaction indicate "a lot of love" and she sees

no signs of friction or fear. The witness testified, and it is clear to the Court, the parties

do not get along well at all.

         Father presented the testimony of his aunt, Susan Dellapiazza. The witness

testified she is close with father, they see each other approximately twice a month, mostly

at maternal grandmother's house in Bridgeville. The witness lives close to maternal

grandmother, She believes father is an outstanding and good father, he is very active,

they fish, play garage hockey, cook and walk the dog. The witness described the father

and children as close. The witness believed the father and children were a "very close

unit".

         Mother testified with regard to her desire to move to Lee's Summit, Missouri, a

suburb of Kansas City. Although mother's testimony couched the move for the benefit of

the children, it is clear the sole basis for the move is her engagement to Jason Atkinson

("fianc~"). The relationship of mother and fianc~ began in March 2022 online and they

first met in person in Missouri on March 24, 2022.

         Initially the parties visited once a month and now visit every two (2) to three (3)

weeks. On her first visit to Missouri she fell in love with the city. Mother testified the

children did not meet fianc~ until the end of 2022. This is contrary to testimony the

children met the fianc~ in August of 2022.
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OF FAT

        Mother made the decision at the end of 2022 or the beginning of 2023 to move to

Lee's Summit. Lee's Summit is an approximate twelve (12) hour drive or two (2) and

one-half (1/2) hour flight from the parties' current residences.

       The houses mother proposes to rent in Lee's Summit are of a suburban nature

with yards. The homes currently identified by mother are approximately one (1) block

from fianc~, will be rented, and each has four (4) bedrooms. It is mother's plan to wed

fianc~ in October 2023, which she plans to do regardless of whether this court approves

the relocation.

        Upon the marriage it is mother's belief her fianc~ and his four (4) children will

move in to the home she is renting. The mother initially testified the children did not

meet her fianc~ until the end of 2022 although subsequent testimony established the first

trip with the children to Kansas City was in August 2022 and that Christmas 2022 was

the second trip. Mother indicated the four (4) bedroom home can be rented for

approximately $1,200.00 per month and her current rent for an apartment is $750.00 per

month. Mother indicated if the court denies relocation she is unsure whether she will

move to Kansas City but the marriage will still occur.

        Mother testified in an incredible fashion she did not believe the move the Kansas

City would affect the children's relationship with father in any way because of

technology. Mother did acknowledge father would be unable to attend extracurricular or

sporting activities, but alleged father had never done so before. However, this court notes
                                                                                            15
                                                                    37-FINDINGS OFF CT

father coached C.L. in baseball one year and in his second year attended all practices and

games. When questioned whether mother's proposed partial visitation with father if the

move is approved would affect her bond with children if the schedule was flipped,

mother was unsure.

       Mother attempted to couch her desire to move to Kansas City with her fianc~ as

for the benefit of the children as it would show the children stability, emotional stability,

and they would see a lifelong stable partnership between mother and her fianc~. Mother

testified she believes it important for the children to see her with a dependable and

supportive partner. Mother believes it's very important for the children to see "love

between a couple".

       Mother testified education is very important and the kids are doing very well at

Grove City. Mother further testified the school district in Kansas City is rated "A+" and

that Grove City Schools are "B+". Mother was unable to provide any details other than an

internet search to support the ratings. Mother acknowledged the class sizes appeared to be

the same and there was no meaningful difference between the school districts. All parties

agreed the children do well in school.

       Mother currently makes $48.00/hour working for a company called "clipboard".

She indicated this company is present in her proposed relocation and she would make

$90.00/hour. Mother works per diem approximately twenty (20) hours per week. Mother

did not check whether there is higher pay available in any other cities other than Kansas
                                                                                            16
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OF FA T

City. Mother did not research any other school districts or schools in other cities, but

rather chose the Lee's Summit Schools because that's where her fianc~'s children attend.

        Mother admitted she only researched the Lee's Summit School District after she

decided to relocate. Mother is an RN. In Kansas City she should be able to obtain her

BSN and work towards her goal of being a flight nurse at Ottawa University. Mother

credibly testified this opportunity was not as easily available in her current location as the

Ottawa program would be approximately fifteen (15) minutes from her home and any

such programs in Pennsylvania would be at least one ( l) hours from her home.

       Mother testified in Kansas City, her fianc~, and her fianc~'s two (2) sisters would

be available for childcare. Mother also testified childcare would not be necessary as

fianc~ makes significantly more money and therefore, she could work less. Mother

believed her RN license would easily transfer and her Pennsylvania license is sufficient

to allow her to work in Missouri.

       Mother asserted the childcare availability is particularly important with regard to

the move as father is not dependable and does not provide childcare and in fact at the last

minute will cancel his commitments. The court notes the availability of maternal

grandmother to babysit as well as daycares in the Grove City area. The court also notes

the children have a strong bond with the maternal grandmother and they see her every

couple weekends.

                                                                                            17
                                                                    37-FINDINGS OF FA T

        Mother's fianc~ is heavily involved in the church and they plan on having

counseling for couples with blended families following the move. Mother proposes the

court authorize the relocation to Kansas City area and grant her primary physical custody

subject to father's partial custody rights. Mother proposes father's custody rights be

comprised of two (2) weeks in the beginning and end of summer as well as during the

remainder of the year, mother will return for a long weeend
                                                        k   every five (5) weeks.

Mother also proposes a week of partial custody with father at Easter and a week at

Christmas time. Mother indicated she will pay all airfare for her and the children to

return, she will then stay in the area visiting her family and friends, and then return with

the children at the conclusion of each partial custody of father.

        Mother presented the testimony of her fianc~, Jason Atkinson. The witness lives

in Lee's Summit, Missouri with his four (4) children, ages fourteen (14), eleven (ID),

eight (8) and six (6). He has never committed a crime, been subject of a restraining order,

been a party to a Children & Youth Services investigation, nor is he subject to any

physical disability or illness that prevents caring for children including mental illnesses or

disabilities. Witness is Director of Business Development for a financial advisor and

works 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

        Fianc~ confirms the parties began talking on Twitter before visiting in person

which they have done at least a dozen times. Mother and fianc6 have visited both in

Kansas City and in Pennsylvania and speak two (2) to three (3) hours a day, at least, on
                                                                                               18
                                                                    37 -FINDINGS OF FA T

the phone. During the subject children's visit at Christmas 2022 they went to the park,

played video games together, and played baseball. The parties also went to a golf driving

range known as Top Golf, went to a nephew's wedding and "had a really fun time".

Fianc~ and C.L. played "a little bit" of pickleball in Kansas City. It is clear to the court

fianc~ has a very strong affection for both children.

        Fianc~ characterized the relationship between the children and mother as very

good, He indicated she is "the most fantastic mother I've ever met". Fianc~ described the

neighborhood as houses of approximately 1,500 square feet, single family homes, and in

the $200,000 range.

        Fianc~ is unable to relocate here due to the nature of his job especially in

comparison to mother's ability to easily relocate as an RN. Fianc~ added "obviously, I

have 4 kids of my own, as well",

        Mother also presented the testimony of her father, Paul Sereda. The witness lives

in Greenville, Pennsylvania which is approximately thirty-five (35) minutes from the

parties current location.

        The witness owns a tavern. He sees the subject children usually a couple times a

week and at least, every other weekend. They go to the park which is right next door to

his residence, play ball, ride on the side by side, or go through the woods, go to fairs,

horseback riding, and around farms. He also teaches C.L. about gun safety. Since the

parties' separation witness has not observed father around the children. Witness sees the

                                                                                               19
                                                                37 - FINDINGS OF FACT

children a lot more in the summer. Witness has taught V.L. how to play guitar and

maternal grandmother has taught the children some piano.

       Both the maternal grandparents spend a lot of time with the children and have a

very close bond. Witness described the mother's relationship with the children as very

caring and "a mother bear" and believe she is a wonderful mother. The children and

grandparents are very attached and close to each other.

       The subject children have four (4) maternal cousins in the Pittsburgh area.

Witness believed father's primary deficiency in parenting was his alcohol consumption

and the drinking prevented father from engaging with or watching the children.

       Witness also called the police for a "welfare check" on father and the children and

to his knowledge the police took no action following said check.

       Mother has no relatives on either side of the family in the Kansas City area.

       The children enjoy going to school in the Grove City School District. The court

appointed David Gloss, Esquire as Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") for the children. In

addition to a report, which is admitted into evidence, the GAL testified in these

proceedings. It was the GAL's conclusion relocation was not in the best interest of the

children. The GAL further belicved the evidence was clear the children had "been

prepared by the mother" for the meeting with the GAL and led to believe life in Missouri

is "nirvana". As examples the GAL pointed out V.L. desired to move to Missouri to ride

                                                                                          20
                                                                 37 - FINDINGS OF FA T

a yet to be built roller coaster and C.L.'s mimicking of mother's statements. The GAL

further stated that C.L., when pressed, will admit he has had good times at father's house.

       The GAL summarized his position by stating the children were born and raised in

the area, all friendships and family are in the Grove City area, no family in Kansas City,

all grandparents arc within close proximity to Mercer County and a belief that an 850

mile move will significantly damage the relationship with father. The GAL's

investigation determined both the children and the school district were aware th eparent's

divorce was "a bad situation" and the father and GAL believed that C.L. and father

should participate in joint therapy. The GAL saw no enhancement to the children's lives

if relocation was granted.

       Father believes counseling between he and C.L. is appropriate as well as the

parties should undertake co-parenting classes. Father is "extremely happy" when he has

his children and does not believe there is any issue with their relationship other than

mother's interference. Father indicated he does not receive the court ordered phone calls

from the children while they are in mother's custody.

       Father believes the relationship with the children has grown over the last year and

the relocation would "devastate" the relationship he and his family have with the

children. Father also believed it would be "horrible" to move the children away from

their family, friends, and dog. Father believes he should have 50/50 custody, and at a

minimum, the children should be with him and not the maternal grandparents when
                                                                                             21
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF F CT

mother works. Should mother choose to move to Kansas City, and the children remain in

Mercer County, father proposes the same visitation schedule as proposed by mother

except father believes mother should have eight (8) weeks in the summer.

                          ANALYSIS OF RELOCATION FACTORS

       The Court believes a decision on relocation is necessary before a custody decision

may be made. Therefore, the Court will review relocation factors first.

   1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement_andduration of the children's

       relationship with the party proposing to relocate and_with the non-relocating

       party, siblings, and other significant persons in the children's life,

       This factor strongly favors father. The evidence is clear father's relationship with

the children was significantly impaired prior to his rehab, there is no such credible

evidence following his rehab stay. Further, the children have no relations whatsoever in

Kansas City. Within an hour and a half ( 1) hours of their current location the children

have three (3) grandparents, multiple cousins, aunts, uncles and other relatives. There are

no half siblings as neither parent has children from any other relationship. The current

nature of the relationship between V.L. and father appears appropriate. The court notes

C.L. 's testimony regarding his desire to essentially terminate any meaningful relationship

with his father. However, C.L. attributes this desire to an incident occurring in September

2022. The court interviewed the child immediately after the incident and C.L. did not
                                                                                           22
                                                                    37 -FINDINGS OF FA T

indicate his desire to terminate the relationship with his father. It is further apparent to

this court mother has had extensive discussions with the children and improperly

influenced them.

   2. The age,developmental stage, needs of the children and the likely impact the

        relocation would have on the children's physical, educational, and emotional

       development, taking into consideration any special needs of the children.

       This factor strongly favors father. There is no evidence of any special needs of the

children. C.L. is nine (9) years old and V .L. is seven (7) years old. All parties agree they

are well-behaved children and do very well in school. Mother testified her internet

research indicated the Missouri School is an A+ and the local schools are B+ but

admitted essentially there is no meaningful difference. The Court believes there would be

no impact, positive or negative, on the children's physical or educational development,

However, there will be a negative impact on emotional development as there will be in an

area with no relatives whatsoever and separated from all grandparents, aunts, uncles and

importantly, father.

    3. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating

        party and the children through suitable custodial arrangements, considering

        the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

        This factor favors father. Should Mother relocate Kansas City, her proposed

custody schedule is father having one (I) long weekend every five (5) weeks, a week at
                                                                                               23
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF FA T

Thanksgiving and Christmas, and two (2) two (2) week periods in the summer. However,'

this proposal does not account for the children's contact with any of their grandparents,

their aunts, uncles or cousins. Further, father credibly testified, without any rebuttal, he

does not receive any of the court ordered phone calls when the children are in mother's

custody. Additionally, C.L.'s testimony regarding his attitude towards father indicates

more frequent contact, and more importantly counseling, is necessary. Should C.L. only

see his father one (1) weekend every five (5) weeks and not have the benefit of

counseling, it is extremely likely their relationship will deteriorate beyond repair. The

court further notes C.L.'s opinion, allegedly based on the September 2022 "PFA"

incident is markedly more drastic than at the time of the actual incident.

   4. The children's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of

       the children.

       This factor is neutral. V.L. age seven (7) does not fully appreciate the impact of

the move. Further, she wanted to move because it would be "fun". V.L. indicated she

wished to move to Kansas City to do gymnastics, was unaware gymnastics were available

in Mercer County, and indicated she did not really know what gymnastics was. Both

children admitted to more than one (I) discussion with mother regarding the move,

various statements made by mother, C.L. used language that does not seem age

appropriate, and neither child indicated anything which would occur in Missouri that was

not available in Mercer County other than mother's fianc~.
                                                                                               24
                                                                      37 -FINDINGS OFF CT

    s.                 re is an established attern of conduct of either art

         or thwart the relationship of the children and the other party.

         This factor slightly favors father. Father credibly testified prior to the court order

it was difficult for him to have visitation with the children. Father further credibly

testified since the order mother has only accommodated additional custody on two (2)

occasions. One ( 1) in exchange for an Easter church service. Father credibly testified he

does not receive any of the court ordered phone calls when the children are in mother's

custody. Conversely, father clearly intentionally and willfully violated this court's order

of December 22, 2022 in failing to return the children on Christmas Day.

    6. Whether the relocation would enhance the general quality of life for the

         party seeking relocation, including but not limited to financial, or emotional

         benefit or educational opportunity,

         This factor favors mother. Emotionally she will be able to reside with, and marry,

her fiance. Educationally she will be able to reside within close proximity of a higher

learning center which will facilitate her receiving her BSN degree and advancement in

her chosen career as a nurse. Financially mother testified to an almost double pay rate

should she move while at the same time indicating she will not be working as many hours

due to her fianc~'s financial situation. Further, mother failed to investigate closer options

such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland or Youngstown.

                                                                                             25
                                                                   37- FINDINGS OF FA T

    7. Whether the relocation enhances the general quality of life for the children

        inetuding but not limited to financial, emotional benefit or educational

        opportunity.

        This factor favors father. No testimony was presented establishing mother was

unable to increase her hours of twenty (20) per week to benefit the children financially or

she was unable to find a job from any other agency or working directly for a hospital or

other provider. Mother's testimony was limited solely to her current employer.

Educationally mother admitted the current schools and the Missouri schools are

comparable. All parties agree the children do well in school. Emotionally all parties agree

the children are well adjusted and behave well. All parties testified to the strong

relationship the children have with the parents of both parties as well as cousins, aunts,

and uncles of both parties. Further, C.L. will benefit from the opportunity to enter

counseling with father.

    8. The reasons or motivations for each party for seeking oropposing relocation.

        This factor is neutral. The court believes mother in good faith has requested

relocation and believes relocation is in the best interest of the children. Father opposes

relocation due to the effect it will have on his relationship with the children and the effect

it will have on the children themselves as well as the relationship between the children

and all of their relatives.

                                                                                             26
                                                                 37- FINDINGS OF FA T

   9. The present and past abuse committed by a party or a member of the party's

       household and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the children or

       an abused party.

       This factor slightly favors mother. Mother admitted other than an incident in

September 2022 the father has never been physical aggressive with her. Mother also

admitted the father has never been physically aggressive with the children. The children's

testimony revealed no physical aggression by either party. Father testified she is a great

mother other than her desire to relocate to Lee's Summit, Missouri. This factor slightly

favors mother as this court did grant the PFA order in favor of mother against father.

However, the court notes the PFA was for six (6) months as opposed to a longer period o

time and the injuries to mother were caused by father aggressively passing through an

unlocked door. This court granted a PFA by finding father recklessly caused bodily injury

as opposed to intentionally or knowingly.

                                 CUSTODY FACTORS
    1. Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing

       contact between the children and the other party.

       This factor slightly favors father. The credible testimony establishes father does

not receive his court ordered phone calls during mother's custody, The credible testimony

establishes when mother works, the children are taken to her parents, rather than to

father. Mother, other than the weekend before the May 31, 2023 hearing and one (1)
                                                                                             27
                                                                 37-FINDINGS OF FACT

other occasion, in exchange for father's concession on Easter, has not agreed to any

additional time. Father failed to follow this court's order on December 22, 2022 and

interfered with mother's ability to regain custody of the children on Christmas Day.

However, mother's proposed partial custody upon relocation is one (I) long weekend

every five (5) weeks, one (I) week at Christmas and Thanksgiving, as well as two (2) tw

(2) week periods in the summer. Father's proposed scheduled should he.have primary

physical custody included eight (8) weeks in the summer with mother. Father also

repeatedly indicated holiday time would be "negotiable" and they could work it out. The

court finds no evidence of any risk to the children moving forward.

   2. The present and past abuse committed by a party or member ofthe party's

       household, whetherthere 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 children,
       The Court incorporates the discussion of Relocation Factor No. 9. Further, the

court believes each party is capable of adequate physical safeguards and supervision of

the children. There was no testimony presented either party had difficulty providing for

childcare or the children's wellbeing.

   3. The parental duties performed by each party on behalfof the children,

       This factor strongly favors mother. The court notes father was unable to identify

the children's pediatrician. The father was unable to identify the teachers of the children.
                                                                                           28
                                                                  37 -FINDINGS OF FA T

The father, other than CL.'s baseball, had little to no involvement in extracurricular

activities. Although father indicated he was not informed of same, he admitted he could

have discovered the information for himself through the school. Mother was primarily

responsible for doctor's appointments, dentist appointments and the like.

    4. The need for stability and continuity in the children's education, family, life

       and community life,

       This factor strongly favors father. The children have resided in Grove City,

Mercer County their entire life. Within approximately one (1) and a half ( 112) hours are

four (4) cousins on the children's maternal side, sixty-one (61) relatives on the paternal

side, including multiple cousins and both maternal grandparents and paternal

grandmother. There was no testimony regarding the children's friends or neighborhood

while in mother's custody. While in father's custody the credible testimony indicated the

children play with friends in the neighborhood. The children do well in school and have

been in Grove City schools their entire educational life. Although the children testified

they wished to play pickleball, ride roller coasters, and testimony regarding singing and

dancing lessons was offered, the court finds all of these opportunities are available in

Mercer County.

    5. The availability ofextended family,

       This factor strongly favors father. The discussion immediately above is

incorporated herein.
                                                                                             29
                                                                    37 -FINDINGS OF F CT

    6. The children's sibling relationships.

        This factor is neutral. Neither party proposes separating the children for custody

purposes. Neither party has children from any prior or subsequent relationships.

    7. The_well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and

        judgment

        The Court incorporates the discussion of Relocation Factor No. 4.

    8. The attempts of a parent to tur the children against the other parent, except

        in cases of domestic violence_where_reasonable safety_measures are necessary

       to protect the children from hgrm.

       This factor favors father. The Court notes no reasonable safety measure is

necessary to protect the children from harm. No evidence was presented that either parent

is abusive to the children. However the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests mother

has attempted to tum the children against father. Immediately following mother's request

for PFA order in September of 2022, this Court interviewed both children. V .L. indicated

except for an instance in which father tried to make her take a pill, later determined to be

an Advil through testimony of C.L., she was not afraid of father at all. C.L. testified he

was not afraid of father and he would have no objections returning to father after a two

(2) week pause in custody. However, six (6) months later C.L. testified regarding the

same incident in a much more drastic fashion essentially indicating he had no interest in

having a relationship with his father and he has hated his father since the incident. Both

                                                                                             30
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OF FA T

children also testified as to how great Kansas City would be and various opportunities

that existed there, and in their opinion, no where else. Both children admitted mother

spoke with them on more than one occasion regarding moving to Kansas City and on the

morning of their testimony. Both children testified as to how sad mother would be if the

move did not occur, how she would cry. C.L. indicated fianc~ is "a wonderful man",

parroting statements made by mother.

    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.

       This factor slightly favors mother. The evidence was clear prior to March 2022

father, although loving his children, was not able to maintain a stable, consistent or

nurturing relationship due to his alcoholism. Mother was mainly responsible for all needs

of the children. The unequivocal testimony is father consumed eight (8) to twelve (I2)

cans of beer per day while at home. Further, since separation, father has not had an

extensive opportunity to care for the children as mother did not agree to partial custody

prior to an order, and the nature of the order is set forth above. There is no evidence the

children are not properly cared for by either party following father' rehab. This Court

acknowledges C.L.'s statements with regard to his emotions and feelings toward father.

The Court incorporates the discussion regarding the children's well-reasoned preference

and attempts to turn the child against the father.
                                                                                              31
                                                                       37 - FINDINGS OF F CT

    10. Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional,

          developmental, educational and special needs of the child.

          This factor is neutral. The Court incorporates custody factors Nos. 8, 9 and 1 O.

    11. The proximity of the residences of the parties,

          Currently this factor is neutral. The parties live in the same school district and

relatively close to each other. However, should mother move to Lee's Summit, Missouri,

approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) miles away, this factor would strongly favor

father.

    12. Each party's availability to care for the children or ability to make

          appropriate childcare arrangements.

          This factor is neutral. Mother has indicated she works part-time and is available to

care for the children. When she is working her parents are available. Father's testimony

established his family members, in addition to himself, are available to watch the

children.

    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.

          The court incorporates relocation factors discussing this issue. Further, the court

finds this factor neutral or slightly favoring father. There is high conflict between the

                                                                                                32
                                                                  37 -FINDINGS OF FA T

parties. The parties have on more than one occasion threatened to call the police on each

other. It is apparent each party has violatcd court orders on at least one occasion. There is

no evidence of abuse by any party towards the children. Mother's failure to allow phone

calls, and very limited visitation schedule for father should she move to Missouri in the

summer and very minimal agreement to partial custody in addition to the court order is

all slightly favorable to father. However, the court notes father's blatant disregard of a

court order with regard to Christmas visitation in 2022.

    14. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member ofa party's

        household.

       This factor favors mother. Prior to March 2022 the evidence is clear father had a

significant alcohol problem that even his family described as moderate to severe. The

unequivocal testimony establishes father consumed eight (8) to twelve (12) beers per day.

However, since rehab, father asserts his sobriety which is supported by his family's

testimony. Mother's testimony is based on her belief of his intoxication over the phone, a

belief not supported following a welfare check by law enforcement. Mother also

discussed, although did not offer, a photograph containing one (I) can of beer that father

indicated was one (1) of his beers of choice. This factor further favors mother as father

was prescribed depression/anxiety medications in his rehabilitation stay in March 2022

and has removed himself without consulting with a physician.

                                                                                             33
                                                                  37 -FINDINGS OFF CT

    15. The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party's

       household.

       This factor is neutral as there is no evidence of any mental or physical condition

of any party interfering with custody.

    16. Criminal convictions of a party or member of a party's household.

       This factor is neutral. There is no evidence of such.

                                          DISCUSSION

       The Court incorporates herein the analysis of the factors with regard to relocation

and custody set forth above as well as the findings of fact.

       With regard to relocation, the court believes the overwhelming evidence requires

the court deny same. In essence, mother has elected Lee's Summit, Missouri for the sole

and exclusive reason her now fianc~ resides there. Interestingly, when her fianc~ was

asked about moving to Mercer County he referenced having four (4) children as an

impediment to the move. The Court does not question the bond between the fianc~ and

the children. or the relationship between mother and fianc~. However, this does not

overcome the best interest of the children.

       The children have lived their entire lives in the Grove City, Pennsylvania area.

The children do well in school. All of the children's grandparents live within

approximately one and a half (l ½) hours of Grove City, as do most of their cousins,

aunts, and uncles. The children have friends, at least in father's neighborhood.
                                                                                            34
                                                                    37-FINDINGS OF FA T

        Mother's testimony regarding the benefits to the children can all be summed up as

 they will be better off being exposed to fianc~ and his love for mother. The

extracurricular activities the children assert they wish to perform in Kansas City are

available in the general Grove City area. Interestingly C.L., appears to only wish to

undertake extracurricular activities in Kansas City. but not in Grove City. Schools are

comparable. Children would lose all regular contact with their family. and most

importantly their father.

        Although father clearly had a significant alcohol problem prior to March of 2022,

the evidence does not support an ongoing problem. Father's past active alcoholism does

not support removing the children eight hundred and fifty (850) miles, Also father

credibly testified mother had previously threatened she would move the children away

and he would never see them again.

        Mother clearly attempt to, and successfully did, influence the children's

testimony. Both children testified as to mother speaking with them regarding the positive

benefits of Kansas City the morning of their testimony before this court. V .L. indicated

mother spoke to her "a little often" about the move. Both children indicated if they did

not move mother would be very sad and would cry all the time. C.L. testified seeing

mother cry upon leaving Kansas City at Christmas 2022.

       Mother filed a PFA in September 2022 alleging the children were afraid of father.

C.L. did not testify to same, and V.L. testified other than her belief father attempted to

                                                                                             35
                                                                 37-FINDINGS OF FA T

have her taken an adult Advil instead of a children's Advil, she was not afraid. Septembe

2022 both children agreed after a two (2) week pause of visitation with father, they woul

have no concerns or issues with returning to the custody. However, six (6) months later,

C.L. indicates thatever since the "PFA incident" he has essentially hated his father and

wants nothing to do with him. The farther away in time from the incident, the worse C.L.

perceives it and the more dramatic his view of the incident is. The only logical conclusion

is this is fueled by mother. The court believes the evidnce
                                                        e clearly establishes the best

interest of the children are to remain in the Grove City area with their friends, school and

relatives that they are comfortable and thriving with, as opposed to moving to Kansas

City where they will only know fianc~ and his four (4) children.

       The court further notes mother testified father refused to allow receipt of the

children in anyway on Easter of 2023 despite the credible testimony an arrangement was

made for the children to appear at the maternal grandparents' church, have breakfast

there, and participate in a play.

        As to custody modification, the evidence establishes a significant increase in

custody at this time with father is not appropriate. Regardless of the reasons, C.L. now

expresses serious concerns. Further, the testimony established father, prior to March of

2022, has never been very active or engaged in the children's lives. Father returned home

from work, went outside, and consumed an approximate twelve (12) pack of beer on an

almost daily basis. In the course of the hearing, father did not know teacher's names or
                                                                                           36
                                                                          37 - FINDINGS OF F CT

the pediatrician's name. Father has not attended many, if any, of V.L's events. Father

indicated mother had not told him of same, but acknowledged he did not explore the

school's app which would have given him that information.

        Additionally, father clearly and intentionally violated this court's order with

regard to Christmas 2022 visitation.

        Conversely, mother does not ensure the children participate in court ordered

phone calls with father when they are in her custody. Mother was not cooperative with

father in arranging significant partial custody prior to the court's custody order of

                  Following          order,                only agreed            (2)
November 2022.                said            mother has                 on two         occasions to

agree to any additional time. One of these occasions was the result of a "trade" to a1low

the children to participate in the grandparents' church play. Despite the children's most

recent testimony regarding their desire to not visit father, both children testified as to

many activities they undertake with father, and the time they enjoy there.

Hence this Order,

                                                                                                       37
                                                                   37 -FINDINGS OF FA T
                              FL.ED I} MERCER
                                   COUNTY
                             2023 JUN I4 AMII: 36
                                RUTH A. BICE
                               PROTHONOTARY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                      CIVIL ACTION

ADAM LEYTRICK,
                       Plaintiff

                       vs.                    : No. 2022-2278

STEPHANIE LEYTRICK,
               Defendant

                                          ORDER
                         /']
         AND NOW, this          day of June, 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Mother's

request for relocation to Lee's Summit, Missouri is DENIED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERD custody of the children is modified as outlined

below:

    I. The parties shall have joint legal custody of children, C.L. and V.L. Each party

shall have full and complete access to all scholastic, medical, dental, psychotherapy,

social service, extracurricular and other similar records and reports concerning the

children and the providers of same are hereby authorized and directed to communicate

directly with and furnish copies of any reports, pertaining to the children, as authorized

by law, to either party upon request. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable, advanced

notice of special events in which the children participates including school activities,

healthcare appointments, extracurricular, religious activities and similar events so that

both parents will have an opportunity to share the experience with the children. The

                                                                                             38
                                                                   37-FINDINGS OF FA T

custodial parent will notify the non-custodial parent of any medical emergency of the

children at the earliest possible moment.

   2. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children subject to Father's

partial physical custody rights as follows:

           a. For the school year defined as commencing seven (7) days prior to the

               first day of school and ending three (3) days after the last day of school:

                   i. For "week one" father shall have the children from Sunday at 3:00

                       p.m. until Tuesday morning at either 9.00 a.m. when he returns the

                       children to mother or when the children are placed on the school

                       bus;

                   ii. For "week two" father shall have the children from Saturday at

                       9:00 a.m. until Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. when he returns the

                       children to mother or when the children are placed on the school

                       bus.

                  iii. For "week two" father shall have custody of the children from

                       Thursday after school, or 4:.00 p.m., until Friday morning at 9:00

                       a.m. when he returns the children to mother or when the children

                      are placed on the bus.

                  iv. Should father's visitation include a Monday holiday in which the

                      children do not have school, other than Easter, Thanksgiving or
                                                                                             39
                                                         37 -FINDINGS OF F           T

            Christmas, the children shall remain with father until 5:00 p.m. as

            opposed to the 9:00 a.m. return time.

       v. As the parties are currently engaging in a week one/week two

            visitation schedule, the rotation as currently exists shall remain in

            place with regard to which weeks are one and/or two.

b. The children will always be with Mother on Mother's day and with Father

   on Father's day. Said days are defined as 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

c. With regard to Christmas:

       i.   On even numbered years, mother shall have the children from

            Noon on Christmas Eve until l :00 p.m. on Christmas Day and

            father shall have the children from 1 :00 p.m. on Christmas Day

            until 1 :00 p.m. on December 27.

       ii. On odd numbered years, father shall have the children from Noon

            on Christmas Eve until I :00 p.m. on Christmas Day and mother

            shall have the children from 1 :00 p.m. Christmas Day until l :00

            p.m. on December 27.

d. With regard to Easter and Thanksgiving:

       i. Mother shall always have the children from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00

            p.m. and father shall always have the children from 3;00 p.m. until

            9:00p.m.

                                                                                40
                                                                    37-FINDINGS OF F               T

The above holiday schedule supersedes the normal custody schedule.

            e. In the months of June, July and August, father shall have one seven (7)

                day consecutive period of visitation each month which shall include his

                previously scheduled visitation in said week.

            f. For years other than 2023, father shall inform mother in writing no later

                than April I of each year of the weeks in which he intends to exercise.

            g. For calendar year 2023, the parties shall agree as to father's visitation

               weeks.

           h. Should mother work more than five (5) consecutive hours, she shall offer

               father the opportunity to exercise partial custody during said work time.

               Mother shall offer said time immediately upon receipt of her work

               schedule. Should father elect to exercise his visitation, and then be unable

               to do so, it is his responsibility to ensure the children are properly cared

               for either by a relative, competent adult, or daycare provider, at his cost.

               All communication with regard to this shall occur through AppClose.

   3. The non-custodial party shall be entitled to one (1) ten (10) minute phone call per

day when the children are in the other party's custody. It is the custodial parent's

obligation to ensure the call is initiated and the children remain engaged in same.

                                                                                              41
                                                                    37 - FINDINGS OFF            T

    4. The parties shall cooperate with each other to accommodate special requests

concerning physical custody of the children to ensure the children have the fullest

opportunity to enjoy the extended family of hath parties.

    5. The parties shall cooperate with each other to accommodate the children's

participation in scholastic and extracurricular activities. The children shall not be enrolled

in any such activity without consent of both parties. or order of court.

    6. All custody exchanges shall occur at the Sheetz gas station located in Grove City,

Pennsylvania, Pine Township.

    7. Neither party will pennit the children to be transported in any uninsured vehicle

nor in a vehicle operated by an individual who is unlicensed or has consumed an

intoxicant.

    8. The children will be always be properly restrained with lap and shoulder harness,

appropriate seat belt, and if required by law, an approved child safety seat.

    9. Neither party shall deprecate, disparage or demean the other party, or say or do

anything in the presence of the children, or allow any third party to do so, that would tend

to cause the children to hold the other party in a bad light.

    10. The parties will have communication in a respectful manner. Each party shall, at

all times, provide the other party with a working telephone number in the case of

emergency. All communication, except in an emergency, shall be through the Appclose

                                                                                           42
                                                                    37- FINDINGS OF FA T

application and limited to custody matters. Both parties shall download and initiate that

app within forty-eight (48) hours of today's date.

    11. Neither party shall discuss any matters of custody or support in the presence or

hearing of the children, or allow a third party to do so. Each party shall hold the other

party up as someone to be loved, respected and obeyed.

    12. Within ten ( I 0) days of this Order, father shall schedule an evaluation with a

psychiatrist or psychologist. Father shall fully disclose his relevant history including the

fact that he was prescribed depression/anxiety medication in March 2022 and he removed

himself from the medication without doctor's orders. Father shall take all medication as

prescribed and attend all follow up appointments as recommended by the

psychologist/psychiatrist.

    13. C.L. and father shall enroll in counseling together. If counsel for both parties are

unable to agree on the identity of a provider within thirty (30) days, the GAL shall

designate said provider with deference to insurance issues.

    14. This Court shall exercise continuing exclusive jurisdiction of the children in all

matters of custody involving the children.

    15. All prior orders of this court are hereby VACATED and this shall be the sole

custody order between the parties unless superseded or modified by order of court.

    16. The parties are free to mutually agree, in writing, to modifications of any portion

of this order, whether on a one time, temporary, or more permanent basis.
                                                                                             43
                                                                     37- FINDINGS OF FA T

    17. RELOCATON

        Each party shall maintain his or her current residence, and in the event either

party shall intend to change his or her residence, the party proposing to relocate shall give

the other party sixty (60) days advance written notice by certified US mail, return receipt

requested, and by regular US mail, of his or her intent to relocate and provide the

following:

             a. The address of the intended new residence.

             b.       The mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new

                  residence.

             c.       Names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including

                  individuals who intend to live in the new residence.

             d.      The home telephone number of the intended new residence, if

                  available.

             e. The name of the new school district and school.

             f.   The date of the proposed relocation.

             g. The reasons for the proposed relocation.

             h. A proposal for a revised custody schedule.

             i.   Any other information which the party proposing the relocation deems

                  appropriate.

                                                                                          44
                                                              37 - FINDINGS OF FA T

      j. A counter-affidavit as provided under 23 Pa.C.S. $5335(d)(1) which can

         be used by the non-relocating party to object to the proposed relocation

         and the modification of a custody Order.

      k. A warning to the non-relocating party that if the non-relocating party does

         not file with this Court an objection to the proposed relocation within

         thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, that party shall be foreclosed

         from objecting to the relocation.

aid
                                        "h
                                        Ronald D. Amrheif, Jr., Judge

                                        y            (mono
                                        t,   (C
                                                     Gtes
                                                  , Wore

                                                                                        45