Court Opinion

ID: 9693374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:38:58.271985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.634262
License: Public Domain

SCHILLER, Judge,
concurring.
Although the Court’s decision in Gruber1 was addressed to parents relocating out of state, the logic employed by the Court applies equally to relocations within the state. Zalenko v. White, 701 A.2d 227 (Pa.Super.1997). However, in those situation such as the present, where a court is being asked to make an initial custody determination, a comprehensive “best interest” analysis should address such issues as location of the parent seeking custody, and the accessibility of the non custodial parent. Therefore, a separate Gruber analysis is not necessary.
In my view a Gruber analysis is necessary only when the party who has previously been awarded custody by a court is seeking to relocate. In such a situation the Gruber paradigm will aid the trial court in reevaluat*1213ing the factors which first resulted in the award of custody to the relocating parent. However, I see no need to employ this separate analysis when the trial court is operating on a clean slate. Thus, the planned relocation of a custodial parent in a voluntary custody arrangement will not invoke Gruber, but that relocation will necessarily be a factor in arriving at the conclusion of what is in the best interest of the children.
Regarding the best interest of the children in the present case, I agree with the analysis of the facts advanced by Justice Montemuro. Therefore, I join in the decision to reverse the trial court.

. Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa.Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990).