Court Opinion

ID: 9693375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:38:58.275601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.670549
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority reverses the order of the trial court which found it in the best interests of the children that primary custody be with the father, Glenn A Beers.
To the extent that the majority opinion decides that Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa.Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990), does not apply to parent relocation cases with the Commonwealth, I disagree.
In my opinion, the Gruber analysis applies when there is a significant proposed relocation from one community to another which entails different educational facilities, cultural, religious, and commercial environments regardless of whether or not a state line is crossed. Furthermore, I believe a removal from Northern Lehigh County to Southern Chester County in Pennsylvania, is a proposed move which properly merits a Gruber analysis.
I would affirm the order of the trial court based upon the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of The Honorable William E. Ford dated September 12, 1996. See, Com. Ex Rel. Robinson v. Robinson, 505 Pa. 226, 478 A.2d 800 (1984) where the court noted “[o]nly where [an appellate court is] constrained to hold that there was a gross abuse of discretion should [it] interfere with the decisions of the hearing judge.” Id. at 236-37, 478 A2d at 806 (quoting Com. ex rel. Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290, 296, 368 A.2d 635, 637 (1977)). See also, Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 645 A.2d 836 (1994) (only where it is found that a custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record is an appellate court allowed to interfere with the trial court’s determination); Moore v. Moore, 535 Pa. 18, 634 A.2d 163 (1993) (although scope of review in custody cases is broad, appellate court erroneously substituted its own judgment for that of the trial court); McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d 845 (1992) (“th[e] broad scope of [appellate] review [in custody cases] does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination”); Lombardo v. Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 527 A.2d 525 (1987) (appellate court exceeded its scope of review where it undertook its own independent review of the record).
I would affirm the order of the trial court.