Court Opinion

ID: 9380974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:06:59.20046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.725121
License: Public Domain

J-A27021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    CATHERINE GILL                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    SEAN GILL                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 919 MDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at
                             No(s): 2021-01203

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: MARCH 21, 2023

        S.G. (“Father”) appeals from the order granting C.G. (“Mother”) primary

custody of their two minor children and permitting Mother to relocate to Texas.

Father argues the court erred in weighing the relocation factors and in granting

Mother primary custody. We affirm.

        Father and Mother were married in 2008. Father served in the National

Guard for six years, and, after completing medical school, Mother became a

physician for the United States Army. N.T., 5/26/22, at 10, 58-59, 142. Father

resigned from the National Guard in late 2013. Id. at 63-65, 142, 210. In

2014, while they were living in Virginia, where Mother was stationed, they had

their first child. Id. at 10, 64.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A27021-22

      The family then moved to New York, Mother’s next army station.

Between 2015 and 2016, Mother was deployed for nine months. Id. at 64,

67-68, 160. During Mother’s deployment, Father cared for their child. For six

months of the deployment, Father and the child lived with the paternal

grandparents. Id. at 131-32, 173; N.T., 5/27/22, at 9.

      When Mother returned, the family moved to Georgia, where the army

had stationed Mother. N.T., 5/26/22, at 64. Father went back to school for

cyber security management. Id. at 65. In 2017, Mother and Father’s second

child was born.

      The family moved to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Mother’s next military post,

in 2018. Both parents had hopes that the location would foster familial

connections, as Carlisle is within a few hours’ drive of both sets of

grandparents. Id. at 16, 36, 121, 143. Mother was away for three to four

months in 2019 for a training session, during which Father cared for the

children while he studied. Id. at 105-07, 160-61. Father earned his master’s

degree in December 2019. Id. at 164. In 2020, during the pandemic

shutdowns, Father watched the younger child and managed the older child’s

homeschooling. Id. at 162-63. Father gained full-time employment in January

2021. Id. at 209.

      In early 2021, the parties separated, and Mother filed for custody.

Mother and Father stipulated to a custody agreement in which they shared

equal custody of the children. Their divorce is pending.

                                     -2-
J-A27021-22

      In January 2022, Father filed a petition for modification of the custody

order. He alleged that Mother had accepted a medical fellowship in Fort Hood,

Texas, and that it would not be in the children’s best interest to move with

Mother. The following month, Mother filed a petition for modification, seeking

primary custody of the children during the school year and permission to

relocate with them to Texas in June or July of 2022.

      The court held a two-day hearing on May 26 and 27, 2022. Mother

testified that she is the primary parent. Id. at 108. She stated she is more

attentive to the children’s schoolwork, health, and hygiene, and their

doctorand dental appointments. Id. at 17, 117. Mother testified that she is

the parent who communicates with the children’s teachers and coaches and

arranges all the extracurricular activities. Id. at 18, 38.

      Regarding the children’s relationships with their grandparents, Mother

testified that she does not believe Father can maintain a relationship with the

maternal grandparents for purposes of visitation with the children during his

custody periods. Id. at 127-28, 130. As for the paternal grandparents, Mother

testified that she took the children to visit their paternal grandparents when

Father stopped talking to them due to their decision to be unvaccinated

against COVID. Id. at 53-55, 102. Mother stated she has also maintained the

children’s relationship with the paternal grandparents through calls and video

chats. Id. at 55-56. Mother testified that she invited the paternal

grandparents to attend the older child’s first communion, which took place a

few weeks before the hearing, after having given Father the opportunity to

                                      -3-
J-A27021-22

invite them. Id. at 43, 56; see also N.T., 5/27/22, at 28-30 (testifying to her

desire to maintain relationship with paternal grandparents).

      Mother testified that she has been in the Army for 11 years and is eligible

for retirement after 20 years of service. N.T., 5/26/22, at 59. She has achieved

the rank of Major. Id. at 10. Mother said that she entered the Army after

considering what would happen if Father was injured while deployed, and her

desire to use her skills to treat injured service members. Id. at 58. Mother

stated that she and Father had discussed her completing the fellowship in the

Army and then transferring to the National Guard or Army Reserves. However,

Mother testified that there would be benefits if she stayed in the Army and

retired from active duty. Id. at 62, 115.

      Mother testified that the Army restations her every two or three years,

and that there is always the chance she will be deployed. Id. at 6, 124. Mother

testified that the Army will be diction her soon regardless of whether she

participates in the fellowship, and a custody decision would be required either

way. Id. at 69-71, 78. Mother stated that her current orders were to report

to Fort Hood on July 15, 2022. Id. at 71.

      Mother testified that the family medicine obstetrics fellowship offered in

Fort Hood is the only one of its kind, and she has been wanting to do it for her

entire career. Id. at 71-72; see also id. at 78-79 (describing fellowship). She

also testified that several former colleagues and mentors are currently

stationed at Fort Hood and living in the neighborhood where she intends to

move. Id. at 77. Mother testified that the fellowship would make her more

                                      -4-
J-A27021-22

marketable when she leaves the Army, and that a similar fellowship would not

be available to her as a civilian. Id. at 79-80. At the same time, she

acknowledged that if she left the military without doing the fellowship, she

would not have any trouble finding employment as a physician. Id. at 122.

      Mother testified that her work schedule during the fellowship would be

based on rotations, including some night shifts and 12-hour days. Id. at 81.

She said she might work 60 or 80 hours in a week. Id. at 118-19. Mother

testified that the maternal grandmother would move to Texas with her to

provide childcare for at least the first year and has co-signed her lease for a

house. Id. at 36, 74, 84. Mother testified that she enrolled the children in a

Catholic school with a curriculum similar to that of their current Catholic

school. Id. at 87. She said that she will enroll the children in the same types

of activities in which they participate in Pennsylvania. Id. at 97.

      Mother contended that technology will allow the children to have

frequent virtual visits with Father and maintain their friendships in

Pennsylvania. Mother also explained that the fellowship will permit her to take

leave to travel, and that she anticipates taking the children on vacations to

visit extended family. Id. at 101-02, 127.

      When asked whether moving frequently is hard on the children, she

stated,

      I think it’s challenging on all of us, but it’s good to be challenged.
      Army families, army kids, are known for being very resilient. You
      know, with those moves come new experiences, new people, new
      groups of friends, new activities, new cultures. . . . So yes, it’s
      challenging, but in a lot of really good, I think, developmental

                                      -5-
J-A27021-22

        ways, and, you know, certainly our oldest is always open to new
        experiences and challenges. She flourishes in those situations.

Id. at 66-67. She testified, “My kids are very easy going and very smart and

very social, and I think they will do well with this and any other transitions in

the future.” Id. at 100.1

        When counsel asked Mother how the long hours she works impacts the

children, Mother said,

        You know, obviously it’s hard. As I said, kids thrive on routine, so
        if my schedule’s fluctuating they will notice that, but they also
        know what I do for a living. So they are very proud. They know
        when mommy’s at the hospital that mommy’s taking care of
        people, that mommy’s helping people. They are very proud to tell
        people that.

        For the longest time Maggie thought anybody in uniform was a
        doctor because mommy’s a doctor and mommy wears that
        uniform to work everyday so everyone in uniform must be a
        doctor. So she is very proud. She likes to talk about what I do.
        She knows my time spent away from the kids or the family is

____________________________________________

1   Mother similarly testified as follows:

        You know, like I said before, army kids are known for their
        resiliency. They, you know, are known for having superior social
        skills and emotional intelligence, and part of that comes from the
        variety of experiences, living in different places, experiencing
        different, you know, types of people, new people, growing their
        sort of awareness of the world.

        You know, I think it’s important – like I said, it’s challenging but
        challenging is good. I think they’ll thrive. The more experiences
        we provide them, you know – and this is true for all kids in any
        situation. The more experiences you give them, the more they
        learn and grow. Eventually they will find their niche, you know,
        what they want to do or be, but, you know, you need to open their
        world for them and let them experience it.

N.T., 5/26/22, at 100.

                                           -6-
J-A27021-22

      always for the benefit of other people, and she takes as much
      pride in that as I do, I think.

      So, yeah, I mean, you know, they will always be well cared for
      whether I'm there or not, but they know what I do for work.

Id. at 103.

      The children’s maternal grandmother testified and confirmed that she

would move to Texas to assist mother with caring for the children. She said

she would relocate or stay after the fellowship, as needed. Id. at 225-26.

      Father testified that he has been the parent who more often performs

primary care for the children. Id. at 155. Father testified that he has been the

parent to take the children to and from school or daycare, activities, and

doctor’s appointments. Id. at 155-56, 159. He said that before he and Mother

separated, he spent most of the parental time with the children and has never

gone more than three weeks without seeing them. Id. at 150, 158. He stated

that now that he and Mother have separate periods of custody, he is equally

involved with the children’s hygiene as Mother is. Id. at 200.

      Regarding   extended    family,   Father   testified   that   the   paternal

grandparents have always been involved in the children’s lives. He recounted

that he and the older child lived with his parents while Mother was deployed

and that the paternal grandfather came to stay with the family for three

months when they lived in Georgia, and again for about a week in January

2021. Id. at 173-74, 182. Father testified that he had a rift with his parents

for several months in 2021 because they would not get vaccinated against

COVID, and he cancelled a trip to visit them. Id. at 174-75. Father said the

                                     -7-
J-A27021-22

relationship has since been mended. Id. at 175. Father testified that he has

not had a positive relationship with the maternal grandfather since the two of

them got into a physical altercation. Id. at 185-86.

      Father testified that before he and Mother separated, they had discussed

Mother’s fellowship, and planned that Father and the children would stay in

Carlisle while Mother spent the year in Texas. Id. at 144-45. Father said they

had also discussed Mother leaving the military following the fellowship, to

avoid moving frequently during the remainder of their children’s childhoods.

Id. at 145-47.

      Father testified that he is a security specialist for the United States Army

at the US Army War College at the Carlisle barracks. He works 40 hours a

week, from 8am to 4pm. Id. at 137-38. He does not have to travel for his job,

and there is no risk that he will be transferred to another location. Id. at 138-

40. Father testified that there are opportunities for advancement if he moved

to the Washington, DC area, but that he has prioritized finding a position that

offers him the flexibility to take care of the children. Id. at 183-84. Father

testified that there is no financial need for the relocation. Id. at 196.

      Father testified that if Mother relocated to Texas, he would be able to

take the children to visit her every month, structured around when the

children have three-day weekends due to holidays. Id. at 149-52. Father

proposed that after the fellowship, Mother could find an Army posting on the

East Coast, and they would try to return to a 50/50 custody schedule. Id. at

198, 203. He stated if he was granted primary custody and Mother returned

                                      -8-
J-A27021-22

to the East Coast after her fellowship, he would find an adjacent job near

where Mother would be stationed. Id. at 235.

      The children’s paternal grandfather testified that the relationship

between the parental grandparents with Father is “good” and the relationship

with the children is “excellent.” N.T., 5/27/22, at 9, 10. He said that the

paternal grandparents had had a “tiff” with Father in 2021 over vaccinations,

but they had “straightened it out.” Id. at 10, 16. He stated Mother brought

the children to visit the paternal grandparents twice during that period and

kept in touch with paternal grandmother. Id. at 13, 15. However, the paternal

grandfather stated his current relationship with Mother was not positive. Id.

at 14, 15.

      The paternal grandfather confirmed that Father had stayed with them

for six months during Mother’s deployment, and that he had stayed with

Father for a period of months and weeks when Father had operations on his

shoulder, wrist, and back. Id. at 9. He stated that during one of his visits,

Mother would work 12-hour days, and Father would care for the children. Id.

at 11. He testified that the most recent visit was earlier in the year, shortly

after he and Father had started speaking again. Id. at 17.

      The paternal grandmother also testified and confirmed that her

disagreement with Father had passed. Id. at 19. She also confirmed that

Mother had invited her to the older child’s first communion a few weeks before

the hearing. Id. at 19, 26-27. She stated that Mother brought the children to

visit when they were at odds with Father and sent her messages and pictures

                                     -9-
J-A27021-22

of the children during that time, but now questions Mother’s motives for doing

so, and says their relationship is “not really good.” Id. at 21-24.2

        At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated its decision on

relocations “are never easy, especially considering from the testimony I heard

you equally love and care for your girls.” Id. at 30.

        The court entered an order granting Mother’s request for relocation to

Texas. The court also gave Mother primary physical custody of the children.

It gave Father physical custody of the children for a portion of their summer

break from school, the opportunity to visit the children in Texas one weekend

per month during the school year, and alternating holidays. It gave the parties

shared legal custody.

        The order stated that of the 16 custody factors,3 the court found 13

factors were neutral or not applicable, two factors (10 and 11) favored Father,

and one factor (5) favored Mother. Specifically, the court found that custody

factor 10 (“Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical,

emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child”)

favored Father, because Father’s work schedule “is better suited for and

adaptable to the girls’ schedules.” Relocation Custody Order of Court, 5/31/22,

at 18 (unpaginated). It also found custody factor 11 (“The proximity of the

residences of the parties”) favored Father, because Father’s residence is closer

____________________________________________

2   Mother and Father each had a friend of theirs testify, as well.

3   See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a).

                                          - 10 -
J-A27021-22

to both paternal and maternal grandparents. However, the court noted that

Father’s    “inability   to   maintain    relationships   with   extended   family   is

concerning.” Id.

        The court found that custody factor 5 (“The availability of extended

family”) favored Mother, because, while Father’s residence in Pennsylvania is

a few hours away from both sets of the children’s grandparents and Father’s

brother, Father has not maintained relationships with extended family

members, whereas Mother has fostered those relationships. Id. at 15-16. The

court noted Mother, not Father, had invited paternal grandparents to attend

the older child’s first communion. Id.

        Of the 10 relocation factors,4 the court found four factors were neutral

or not applicable, two factors (1 and 10) favored Father, and four factors (3,

6, 7, and 8) favored Mother. The court found that relocation factor 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”) favored Father, because when

Mother has worked long hours or been deployed, Father has taken care of the

children, “and/or at the very least, [been] more consistent in their lives. The

girls have never been removed from their Father, while they have experience

not being with their Mother.” Id. at 12. The court also found relocation factor

10 (“Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child”) favored Father,

____________________________________________

4   See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).

                                          - 11 -
J-A27021-22

because Father has been a consistent caretaker for the children, while Mother

“has been away from the home during months of training and deployment.”

Id. at 14.

      The court found that relocation factors 3, 6, 7, and 8 favored Mother. In

the court’s view, relocation factor 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”) favored Mother because “[i]t is more feasible that Father’s

relationship with the girls will be more easily preserved if the girls relocate

than it will be for the Mother’s relationship with the girls to be preserved if the

girls do not relocate with her.” Id. at 13. The court considered that Father has

a stable job and testified that his work schedule would allow him to fly to

Texas to visit the children, whereas it would not be in the children’s best

interest to visit Mother in Texas on a monthly basis if they remained in

Pennsylvania. Id. at 12-13.

      For relocation factor 6 (“Whether the relocation will enhance the general

quality of life for the party seeking relocation, including, but not limited to,

financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity), the court found that

both pursuing the fellowship and remaining in the Army for 20 years would

improve financial security for Mother, and that moving in accordance with

Mother’s Army postings “was the family’s plan when the parties were married.”

Id. at 14.

                                      - 12 -
J-A27021-22

      For relocation factor 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), the court found that relocating to Texas,

“in a neighborhood with other children, in another Catholic school, where

maternal grandmother will be available to help care for the girls” would

enhance the children’s quality of life, and therefore favored Mother. Id. at 15.

The court noted that “[c]hildren are resilient” and stated, “Moving to another

state will enhance their tolerance for those who are different from them, and

it will create new challenges and experiences for them.” Id.

      Finally, the court found relocation factor 8 (“The reasons and motivation

of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation”) favored Mother, because

she is moving to better her career. Id. The court noted that Father’s reasons

for opposing the relocation is to keep the children involved in their current

school and activities, and to keep them close to their extended family;

however, the court noted that Father has not maintained his relationship with

his family.

      Father appealed. He raises the following issue:

      I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of law
      in granting Mother’s petition for relocation, and thus, permitting a
      temporary move to Texas, as such decision is inconsistent with
      the weight of the evidence that shows it is in the best interest of
      the Children to remain with Father in Pennsylvania while Mother
      temporarily moves to Texas to pursue a one-year medical
      fellowship; the record does not establish it is the Children’s best
      interests to be uprooted from their established home and
      schooling in central Pennsylvania to follow Mother on a temporary
      move, particularly when Mother failed to establish that such a

                                      - 13 -
J-A27021-22

     temporary relocation would either significantly improve her
     circumstances economically or the lives of the Children?

        A. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter
        of law in determining that relocation factor #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 parries,” favored Mother, as the trial
        court erred in concluding that Father’s relationship with the
        Children will be more easily preserved if Mother is permitted
        to relocate temporarily with the Children than Mother’s
        relationship with the Children would be preserved if the
        Children remained with Father in Pennsylvania?

        B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter
        of law in determining that relocation factor #7, “Whether
        the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the
        child, including but not limited to, financial or emotional
        benefit or education opportunity,” favored Mother, as
        Mother failed to meet her burden to prove that allowing her
        to relocate temporarily with the Children to Texas for a one-
        year medical fellowship will enhance the general quality of
        life for the Children, as Mother provided no evidence that
        the relocation would enhance the Children’s opportunities
        financially, emotionally, socially, or educationally; as Mother
        provided no evidence that the Children’s current living
        arrangements, schooling or friendship networks would
        improve by temporarily relocating to Texas where the record
        established the Children will be cared for by Maternal
        Grandmother while Mother works 60-80 hours per week
        during her one year fellowship?

        C. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter
        of law in determining that relocation factor #8, “The reasons
        and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the
        relocation,” favored Mother, as Mother’s motivation in
        seeking the relocation was solely to benefit Mother, and not
        the Children, while Father’s motivation opposing the
        relocation that such temporary relocation was not in the
        best interest of the Children and did not justify the
        Children’s upheaval from their established location?

Father’s Br. at 4-6 (suggested answers omitted).

                                    - 14 -
J-A27021-22

      Father argues that the court determined the custody factors favor Father

and “clearly [weigh] in Father’s favor as the primary caregiver for the

children.” Id. at 19. Father contends that Mother did not carry her burden to

prove that relocation would serve the best interests of the children, and that

uprooting the children “from their established home, school, and activities to

relocate with Mother to F[ort] Hood, Texas on a temporary basis” is not in the

children’s best interests. Id. at 22. He quotes Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d

606, 613 (Pa.Super. 2006), for the proposition that “[w]here a move . . . takes

a child away from his other parent, and there are no other advantages to the

move, [the Superior Court] simply cannot endorse the decision to grant

relocation.” Id. at 24.

      Father more specifically argues the court erred in concluding that

relocation factors 3, 6, 7, and 8 weighed in favor of Mother. Father argues the

court erred in finding that relocation factor 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”) favored Mother, because he has been the children’s primary

caregiver since their births, and ordering the children to relocate will be

destructive to that relationship. He asserts that he assumed all childcare

responsibilities while Mother was deployed or in training, once for nine

months, and once for three months, and that he has never been away from

the children for more than three weeks. He argues that prior to the parties’

separation, he predominantly took the children to their medical appointments

                                      - 15 -
J-A27021-22

and activities and attended their PTO conferences, and that he provided care

for the children during the COVID pandemic and while the older child was

distance-learning.

      Father further argues that he can continue to provide direct care for the

children more often than Mother, as his job does not require him to travel or

work more than 40 hours per week, and he can work from home at times.

Father points out that, in contrast, Mother testified that she will be working

60-80 hours a week, on a rotating schedule, with occasional night shifts and

12-hour days.

      Regarding factor 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”), Father argues

that Mother did not provide evidence that relocation would improve her quality

of life. Father asserts that Mother testified that her work schedule during her

fellowship would be demanding, and any benefit to Mother would not occur

until after the completion of the fellowship. Father also argues that Mother did

not testify that her Army salary would increase after she completed her

fellowship.

      Father argues the court erred in finding relocation factor 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”)

favors Mother, because Mother presented no evidence that the move would

benefit the children. Father asserts that Mother testified the Catholic school in

                                     - 16 -
J-A27021-22

Texas where she enrolled the children is like the Catholic school in

Pennsylvania, and that the children’s extracurricular activities would be

similar. Father asserts Mother testified that the children’s “lifestyle will not

change even though the location does.” Id. at 30 (quoting N.T., N.T., 5/26/22,

at 97) According to Father, this testimony supports that the relocation would

be a lateral move for the children, at best.

      Father also points to his testimony that there was no financial need for

the relocation. Father compares the facts of this case with Ketterer v.

Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), in which Father claims this Court

affirmed the trial court’s denial of relocation where there was an economic

need for relocation, but the relocating party testified the children’s lives would

only be “marginally better” after the move. Id. at 34-35.

      Father further argues that while Mother generally testified that children

benefit from being exposed to different challenges, she provided no examples

specific to the children or Texas. Father argues that the court’s finding that

relocation will enhance the children’s tolerance for other people, cultures and

customs is not supported by the record, and based on extrajudicial evidence.

      Father also highlights potential negative effects of the move on the

children’s’ quality of life. First, according to Father, the parties had chosen to

reside in Carlisle due to its proximity to extended family, and the relocation

would create a burden on seeing extended family. Father claims the court

should not have considered the willingness of maternal grandmother to

relocate with the children to be in Mother’s favor, because maternal

                                     - 17 -
J-A27021-22

grandmother testified that she would be equally able to assist if Mother

remained in Pennsylvania. Father also testified that the older child has been

engaged with her school, friends, and activities — such as soccer, girl scouts,

dance, and gymnastics — for the past three years, and that a move would be

disruptive. Father also points out that if the Children relocate with Mother,

Mother will not have as much time to care for them due to her work schedule,

and they will likely need to relocate again once the fellowship is over, “with

no guarantee thereafter of where [Mother] will be posted.” Id. at 32.

      Regarding factor 8 (“The reasons and motivation of each party for

seeking or opposing the relocation”), Father argues the court erred in

concluding this factor favored Mother because Mother sought relocation for

her own benefit, and not for the children’s benefit. Father asserts that Mother

“provided no testimony regarding how the fellowship could affect her future

income and Mother provided no evidence that the financial aspects of the

betterment of her career would not trickle down to the children unless she

obtained primary custody of them for this interim period.” Id. at 40. Father

asserts that while Mother testified that she desired to finish her 20-year career

in the Army, for which she had nine years remaining, Mother acknowledged

that she could have finished earning for her retirement in the reserve service.

      Meanwhile, Father asserts that he opposes the relocation because it is

not in the children’s best interest. He claims, “By granting the relocation, the

trial court removed the children from their established lives, school, activities,

friends, and care providers, and relocated them to live 1500 miles away . . .,

                                      - 18 -
J-A27021-22

in a temporary residence, in the primary care of their maternal grandmother,

while Mother works and attends the fellowship.” Id. at 39-40.

     Father also argues the court erred in disregarding Father’s opposition to

the move on the basis that the children currently live closer to extended

family. Father argues that the family choose to move to Carlisle three years

ago to be closer to extended family, and that the paternal grandparents have

been involved in Children’s lives from birth. He claims he testified that the

temporary rift with his parents grew out of a concern for the safety of his

children during the COVID pandemic, and that the testimony supports that

the relationship has since been mended.

     In reviewing a custody order, “we accept the factual findings of the trial

court that are supported by competent evidence of record[.]” S.S. v. K.F.,

189 A.3d 1093, 1098 (Pa.Super. 2018). “[W]ith regard to issues of credibility

and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who

viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand.” D.K. v. S.P.K., 102 A.3d 467,

478 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 650 (Pa.Super.

2011)).

     [T]he discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters
     should be accorded the utmost respect, given the special nature
     of the proceeding and the lasting impact the result will have on
     the lives of the parties concerned. Indeed, the knowledge gained
     by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding
     cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed
     record.

                                   - 19 -
J-A27021-22

Ketterer, 902 A.2d at 540 (citation omitted). We therefore do not substitute

our judgment for that of the trial court, or determine whether it came to the

“right” conclusion. Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129, 131 (Pa.Super.

2005). We reject the court’s custody decision only if it “involve[s] an error of

law, or [is] unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court,”

see D.K., 102 A.3d at 478 (quoting J.R.M., 33 A.3d at 650), and “thus,

represent[s] a gross abuse of discretion.” R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d

1234, 1237 (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835, 838

(Pa.Super. 2001)).

       When a party petitions the court to relocate a child’s residence5 and

amend custody accordingly, the court must consider both the relocation

factors of Section 5337(h) and the custody factors of Section 5328(a). S.S.,

189 A.3d at 1098. Some of these considerations overlap, either expressly or

implicitly. Id. The factors are as follows:

           § 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

       (a) Factors.--In ordering any form of custody, the court shall
       determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant
       factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which
       affect the safety of the child, including the following:

          (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit
          frequent and continuing contact between the child and
          another party.

____________________________________________

5 “Relocation” as defined by the Domestic Relations Code is “[a] change in
residence of the child which significantly impairs the ability of a nonrelocating
party to exercise custodial rights.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322 (“Relocation”).

                                          - 20 -
J-A27021-22

       (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 section 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.

       (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.

                                   - 21 -
J-A27021-22

        (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).

                            § 5337. Relocation.

                                      ...

     (h)Relocation factors.--In determining whether to grant a
     proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors,
     giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the
     safety of the child:

        (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.

        (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.

                                    - 22 -
J-A27021-22

           (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).

       Guided by these factors, the court must not consider the issue of

relocation separate from the issue of custody, but “decide the two issues

together ‘under a single umbrella of best interests of the children.’” S.S., 189

A.3d at 1098 (quoting S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 550 (Pa.Super. 2013)).6

We will affirm where the court “engaged in the proper analysis using both

relocation and custody factors, with the best interest standard as the guide.”

S.J.S., 76 A.3d at 550.

       In its opinion, the trial court acknowledges that it is required to consider

the relocation and custody factors in tandem, and that the best interest of the

child controls. Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/22, at 3. It states that it considered

all factors and found that its decision was most swayed by the following:

       •   “Mother’s willingness and efforts made to keep maternal and paternal
           grandparents actively involved in the Children’s lives”;

____________________________________________

6 See also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) (“In ordering any form of custody, the
court shall determine the best interest of the child”); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)
(stating the party proposing relocation has the burden of establishing that the
relocation will serve the best interest of the child).

                                          - 23 -
J-A27021-22

      •   the family had planned on a military life and had already lived in four
          states;

      •   “this type of travel enhances Children’s tolerance of others and of
          new cultures and customs and creates new challenges and
          experiences”;

      •   the children’s school and activities and community will be similar;

      •   the maternal grandmother would provide additional childcare;

      •   the fellowship will make Mother more marketable when she leaves
          the Army;

      •   the children’s need for stability in their community was alleviated by
          their youth and inherent ability to make friendships; and

      •   if they continue in their current career paths, Father has greater
          ability to travel to visit Mother’s residence, in comparison to Mother’s
          ability to travel to Father.

Id. at 4-7. The record supports these conclusions, and in light of them, the

court’s decision to award Mother primary custody is not unreasonable.

      Father argues he has spent more hours with the children than Mother

has, and the children need stability. However, both parties had equal custody

for over a year before the hearing, and which parent has historically been the

primary caretaker is but one custody factor, as is the children’s need for

stability. While Father asserts that he provides a higher percentage of direct

care for the children when he exercises custody than Mother does, and would

continue to do so, given the hours Mother will work during the fellowship, this

again, is but one consideration for the court.

      While Father characterizes the relocation as “temporary,” because it is

based on Mother’s attending the one-year fellowship, Mother testified that the

army would be restationing her regardless of the fellowship and would

                                      - 24 -
J-A27021-22

continue to restation her every two or three years. The court clearly awarded

Mother custody to allow her to continue to fulfill her commitment to the

military for the foreseeable future.7

       Father claims the record does not support that relocation will improve

Mother’s quality of life, because the fellowship will involve long-work hours

and there was no testimony supporting an immediate financial benefit.

However, Father ignores the intangibles, such as Mother’s love for, and pride

in, her career, as well as her long-term financial prospects following the

fellowship. Father’s reliance on Speck, 895 A.2d at 613, is thus misplaced. In

that case, we found the relocation was based only on “the mother’s

cohabitation with the man she intended to marry.” 895 A.2d at 613-14.

       Although there is no financial need for the move, a party seeking

relocation need not prove the move is financially necessary, or that there are

no other job opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Geiger v. Yeager, 846

A.2d 691, 698 (Pa.Super. 2004). Although Father argues that Mother seeks

the move for her own benefit, he fails to acknowledge that Mother had

____________________________________________

7 We note, however, “all custody awards are temporary insofar as they are
subject to modification by an ensuing court order any time that it promotes
the child’s best interest. Thus, by force of circumstances, no award of child
custody is permanent regardless of whether the order is styled as interim or
final.” J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2017); see also Arnold
v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super. 2004) (“Child custody orders are
temporary in nature and always subject to change if new circumstances affect
the welfare of a child. . . . [The court] may always entertain an application for
modification and adjustment of custodial rights”) (quoting Kassam v.
Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023, 1025 (Pa.Super. 2002)).

                                          - 25 -
J-A27021-22

committed to military service before they even had children or dispute the

reasonableness of Mother’s motivation for moving to Fort Hood.

      Father also argues that relocation was improper because the testimony

indicates it would be only a lateral move for the children, while uprooting them

and impeding their relationship with Father. However, Mother was not

required to prove that the relocation will substantially improve the children’s

lives. Rather, she needed to show only that, in consideration of all factors, it

is in the children’s best interest.

      Father’s reliance on Ketterer is therefore also misplaced. While a

substantial improvement to the children’s lives was required under Gruber v.

Gruber, 583 A.2d 434, 439 (Pa.Super. 1990), that decision has been

supplanted by the statutory factors. See Commonwealth v. Childs, 142

A.3d 823, 832 (Pa. 2016). Moreover, the testimony supports the finding that

there will be some benefits to the children, such as exposure to new

experiences and more time with maternal grandmother. And, again, any

immediate benefit to the children’s quality of life was but one of several factors

considered by the court.

      To avoid having the children switch schools during the academic year or

miss school days, the court had three options: (1) grant Mother’s request to

relocate and award her primary custody, (2) grant Mother’s request to relocate

but award primary custody to Father, or (3) deny the relocation. Either of the

latter options would force Mother to leave the armed forces to have more than

a minimal amount of custody time with her children. The court found that the

                                      - 26 -
J-A27021-22

first option, however, will allow Mother to remain in the military and Father to

exercise custody with some frequency. The court also found that Mother is

more likely to facilitate visits with both sets of grandparents in comparison

with Father, even after she and the children move farther away.

       The court acknowledged that its decision to award Mother primary

custody was not an easy one. We agree with that assessment. However, given

the record, the order does not constitute a gross abuse of discretion, and we

therefore affirm.8 See D.K., 102 A.3d at 478.

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2023

____________________________________________

8 We do not find an abuse of discretion on the present record, but any further
request for relocation will of course be subject to review based on the record
at that time.

                                          - 27 -