Court Opinion

ID: 9959378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 16:11:23.873602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:25.411957
License: Public Domain

J-S05032-24

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  JUSTIN M. CAROSI                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KATELYN J. CAROSI                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1066 WDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2023
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
                         Civil Division at No. 2017-0937

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                      FILED: April 11, 2024

       Katelyn J. Carosi (Mother) appeals from the order partially granting and

partially denying her request to relocate with the parties’ son, B.C. (Child).

Upon review, we affirm.

                             Factual & Procedural History

       Mother and Justin M. Carosi (Father) married in August 2014, and Child

was born in November 2015. The parties separated in 2017.1 On August 7,

2017, the parties consented to a custody order which provided for their equally

shared legal and physical custody of Child.

       On March 29, 2023, Mother filed a notice of relocation, followed by a

petition for relocation on April 14, 2023.             Mother sought to move

____________________________________________

1 The parties were divorced by decree entered October 8, 2020.
J-S05032-24

approximately 20-25 miles to Carrolltown, Pennsylvania; she also sought to

enroll Child in the Cambria Heights School District.

      In response, Father filed a counter-affidavit objecting to Mother’s

relocation. On April 28, 2023, Father filed a counterclaim for primary physical

custody of Child. Father specifically requested that Child remain enrolled in

the Forest Hills School District.

      The trial court held a hearing on July 31, 2023. The trial court heard

testimony from four witnesses: Mother, Father, Danielle Vivian (Child’s

paternal aunt), and Paula Carosi (Child’s paternal grandmother).       The trial

court made the following findings:

      Mother is 30 years old. N.T.[, 7/31/23, at] … 4. Father is 36
      years old. [Id. at] … 106. The parties dated in high school and
      married on August 23, 2014. Id. [at] … 5-6. They separated [in]
      2017, when Child was [around] a year old. Id. [at] … 6.

      The parties negotiated a Custody Stipulation and Order dated
      August 7, 2017. [Id. at] 6; see also DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 1
      (JULY 31, 2023). Pursuant to the Order, the parties shared legal
      custody and shared physical custody on a week-about schedule,
      exchanging custody on Sundays at 6:00 P.M. N.T. [at] … 6-7.
      The non-custodial parent had custody on Wednesday during the
      other parent’s week of custody. Id. [at] … 7.

      The parties followed the Custody Stipulation and Order until Child
      reached school age. [Id. at] … 7.

      When Child reached school age, Father was a section foreman at
      Rosebud Mining[,] working first and second shifts. [Id. at] … 10.
      First shift required Father to be away from home from 4:00 or
      5:00 A.M. until 3:00 or 4:00 P.M. Id. [at] … 10-11. Father was
      unable to get Child ready for school when he worked first shift.
      Id. [at] … 10. Second shift required Father to be at work from
      1:00 or 2:00 P.M. to 11:00 [P.M.] or 12:00 [A].M. Id. [at] … 11.
      If Father worked second shift, he was unable to care for Child after
      school. Id. [at] … 10.

                                     -2-
J-S05032-24

     When Child entered kindergarten, Mother exercised custody on
     most school nights and transported Child to school in the
     mornings. [Id. at] … 7-8, 86; see also DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT
     2. The parties maintained this modified custody schedule when
     Child attended kindergarten and first grade (the 2020-2021 and
     2021-2022 school years). N.T. [at] … 8-9, 12-13.

     Mother lived with her grandmother (Child’s great-grandmother)
     [(“Maternal Great-Grandmother”)], in Salix, Cambria County, for
     four years. [Id. at] … 16. The residence is in the Forest Hills
     School District, where Child has attended school.

     At all relevant time periods, Father has resided in Sidman,
     Cambria County, in the Forest Hills School District. [Id. at] … 17.
     Father’s residence is three to four miles from Maternal Great-
     Grandmother’s home. Id.….

     Since December 2020, Mother has been dating her current
     boyfriend, Adam Hite [“Boyfriend”]. [Id. at] … 22. Mother
     introduced Boyfriend to Child in September 2021. Id. [at] … 22-
     23. Mother and Boyfriend have no plans to marry. Id. [at] … 96.

     Boyfriend is a truck driver for Hite Trucking (his family’s business)
     and a farmer with his uncle. [Id. at] … 24, 31.

     In 2022, Mother became pregnant with Boyfriend. [Id. at] … 13.
     They announced the pregnancy to their families and Child on
     Christmas Day 2022. Id. [at] … 13-14. Father learned of the
     pregnancy on December 25, 2022. Id. [at] … 14.

     In January 2023, the parties returned to the shared custody
     schedule outlined in the Custody Stipulation and Order dated
     August 7, 2017. [Id.] Father was no longer working at that time
     because of a knee injury suffered in October 2022. Id.

     Mother filed the instant Notice of Relocation on March 29, 2023.

     Mother and Boyfriend had their child, R.H. [“Half-Sister”], in May
     2023. [Id. at] … 22.

     Mother has been employed at UPMC Altoona Hospital for
     approximately one year. [Id. at] … 18. Mother is a Registered
     Nurse. Id.

     Mother was on maternity leave for 11 weeks and [testified she]
     return[s] to work on August 10, 2023. [Id.] Mother’s typical shift
     is 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Id. She is required to work six late

                                     -3-
J-S05032-24

     shifts per month, which begin at 10:00 A.M. or later. Id. Mother
     has some control over her work schedule.          Id.; see also
     DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 3.

     Mother requests permission to relocate to Boyfriend’s residence at
     609 Dutch Road in Carrolltown, Cambria County, in the Cambria
     Heights School District. [Id. at] … 21. Mother also seeks primary
     physical custody during the school year and alternating weeks of
     custody during the summer. Id. [at] … 35.

     Boyfriend’s three-bedroom home is situated on three acres of
     property. [Id. at] … 24-26; see also DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT[] 5.
     Boyfriend’s uncle owns property behind the home. [N.T. at] 25-
     26.

     Mother’s name is not on the deed to Boyfriend’s property. [Id.
     at] … 96.

     Mother and Child resided at Boyfriend’s home during the summer
     of 2023, although Mother claims the move was “not permanent.”
     [Id. at] … 27.

     Mother’s proposed residence is 26 miles from her prior residence
     with Maternal Great-Grandmother. [Id. at] … 21; see also
     DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 4. Mother’s proposed residence is 22
     miles from Father’s home. N.T. [at] … 21-22.

     If Mother relocates to Carrolltown and works full-time, she claims
     she would be unable to transport Child to Forest Hills, drive R.H.
     to daycare, and arrive at work on time. [Id. at] … 89-90. Mother
     admits it would be more feasible to transport Child to Forest Hills
     if she works part-time, which is planned in November 2023. Id.
     [at] … 92-93.

     Mother and Father agree that Boyfriend has a positive relationship
     with Child. [Id. at] … 23, 112.

     Father has been employed by Rosebud Mining Company for
     fourteen years. Id. [at] … 106. He is currently on Workers
     Compensation. Id. [at] … 116.

     Father has been in a relationship with Katelyn Grove [“Girlfriend”]
     for a total of three years, with a one-year break after the first
     year. [Id. at] … 139-[]40. Girlfriend has two boys, ages 12 and
     [8], who attend the Westmont Hilltop School District. Id. [at] …
     140, 141. Girlfriend and her children spend “a lot of time” at

                                    -4-
J-S05032-24

      Father’s home. Id. Child gets along with Girlfriend’s children.
      Id. [at] … 140. Father and Girlfriend plan to marry. Id.

      Child attended the Forest Hills School District for pre-school,
      kindergarten, and first grade. [Id. at] … 61.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/26/23, at 4-7 (paragraph numbers and

footnotes omitted).

      At the close of the hearing, the trial court stated that it would take the

matter under advisement.     On August 9, 2023, the trial court entered the

order from which Mother appeals. The trial court contemporaneously issued

an opinion with the order in which the court recounted “a telephone conference

with counsel on August 2, 2023.”      Trial Court Opinion, 8/9/23, at 1.     The

conference was not recorded. Id. at 1 n.1. However, the court stated that it

discussed statutory relocation and custody factors during the conference. Id.

(citing 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5337(h), 5328(a), and 5323(d)). Id. Further,

      [a]fter considering all relevant factors, and giving weighted
      consideration to those factors which affect the safety of [C]hild,
      th[e] [c]ourt found that [C]hild’s best interests require Mother’s
      request for relocation to be granted[,] but [C]hild to continue
      attending the Forest Hills School District. The [c]ourt directed the
      parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable custody schedule within
      10 days.

           By letters dated August 3, 2023, both attorneys outlined the
      terms of the parties’ agreement. The [trial c]ourt mark[ed] and
      admit[ted] the documents as Court Exhibit 1 (letter from James
      Pappas on behalf of Father) and Court Exhibit 2 (letter from
      Lauren Darbouze on behalf of Mother).

Id. at 1-2.

      The record contains counsels’ letters to the trial court.    Both letters

indicate that counsel served copies of their letters on their respective clients

                                     -5-
J-S05032-24

and opposing counsel.     Although the parties did not enter into a formal

agreement, the letters reflect their agreement with maintaining the shared

custody schedule established in 2017, and Child’s continued enrollment in the

Forest Hills School District. The two-paragraph letter from Father’s counsel

states:

            Counsel[,] after discussion with their respective client[s,]
      agree that the order should remain the same as far as the current
      custody schedule goes. The only change in the order would be
      [that Mother] would be responsible during her week for seeing
      that [C]hild attends the Forest Hills School District.

             My client[, Father,] would also request the following: 1. The
      order provide that the custodial exchanges be at Summerhill[,] PA
      Dollar General which is a lighted area with cameras[;] 2. A
      provision that [Mother] ensure [C]hild attends all extracurricular
      activities and sporting events.

Court Exhibit 1 (single page).

      Similarly, the one substantive paragraph in the letter from Mother’s

counsel states:

             Regarding the aforementioned matter, I have discussed the
      relocation matter with my client[, Mother,] and opposing counsel,
      James Pappas, Esquire. [Mother] is grateful for the opportunity
      to relocate at this time and will ensure she makes the Forest Hills
      School District work during her periods of custody. Further, my
      client is requesting that the parties [be] required to sign up for,
      and use[,] AppClose for all communication.

Court Exhibit 2 (single page).

      In the August 9, 2023 order, the trial court granted Mother permission

to relocate, ordered Child’s continued enrollment in the Forest Hills School

District, and specified that Mother “be responsible for transporting Child to the

                                      -6-
J-S05032-24

Forest Hills School District.” Order, 8/9/23, at 2. The court further ordered

the parties to “continue to abide by the Custody Stipulation and Order dated

August 7, 2017.” Id. As counsel requested, the court ordered:

      During Mother’s periods of custody, she shall ensure that Child
      attends all school activities, extracurricular activities, and sporting
      events.

      Unless otherwise agreed, all custody exchanges shall occur at the
      Dollar General in Summerhill, Pennsylvania, which has a lighted
      parking lot with cameras.

      The parties shall      register   for   and   use   AppClose   for   all
      communication.

Id. (numbering omitted).

      On September 7, 2023, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. She presents the following questions

for review:

      I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of
      law in granting Mother’s request to relocate with [C]hild but
      refusing to change [the] school district of [C]hild, which in turn
      significantly burdens Mother with regard to transportation and
      negatively affects [C]hild?

      II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of
      law when it failed to consider all of the evidence and contradictory
      testimony related to Mother’s relationship history?

      III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of
      law by failing to consider and establish a substitute custody
      schedule that will adequately foster an ongoing relationship
      between [C]hild and Father?

      IV. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of
      law in failing to consider Father’s true motivation in opposing
      Mother’s relocation?

Mother’s Brief at 4-5.

                                        -7-
J-S05032-24

                                  Discussion

      In reviewing Mother’s issues,

      our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of
      discretion. We 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, we
      must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed
      the witnesses first-hand. 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
      law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the
      trial court.

White v. Malecki, 296 A.3d 1210, 1213 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).

      Before proceeding to the merits of Mother’s issues, we address whether

Mother preserved her issues before the trial court, and her ostensible consent

to Child’s enrollment in the Forest Hills School District. See Court Exhibit 2.

      As explained above, the trial court conducted a telephone conference on

August 2, 2023. The following day, counsel submitted letters to the trial court.

Mother’s counsel stated that counsel had discussed “the relocation matter with

[Mother] and [Father’s counsel].” Court Exhibit 2. Counsel further relayed

that Mother would “ensure that she makes the Forest Hills School District work

during her periods of custody.” Id. The trial court entered its order on August

9, 2023.

      “Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Here, Mother failed to object

to the custody order or raise any issue about the validity of the order with the

                                      -8-
J-S05032-24

trial court. Therefore, we conclude she has waived her issues challenging the

order and cannot raise them for the first time before this Court. See id.

      In addition, Mother has waived her issues by consenting to the trial

court’s order. “Ordinarily, a party who consents to … a judgment or order

cannot appeal therefrom.” Brown v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Health, 434

A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. 1981) (citation omitted); see also Karkaria v.

Karkaria, 592 A.2d 64, 71 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“A party who has acquiesced

in an order or judgment will not later be heard to challenge it.”) (citation

omitted). Because Mother agreed to the court’s order, she is prohibited from

challenging it on appeal.     Thus, we also find waiver based on Mother’s

acquiescence to the order.

      Even in the absence of waiver, Mother’s issues would not merit relief.

The Child Custody Act sets forth factors which a trial court must consider in

custody and relocation cases. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1)-(16); 23 Pa.C.S.

§ 5337(h)(1)-(10).     Section 5328(a) provides: “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 [factors 1 through 16.]”       23 Pa.C.S. §

5328(a). Section 5337(h) lists 10 factors a court must consider in determining

whether to grant relocation (while also giving weighted consideration to

factors which affect safety).   When one party proposes relocation and the

other seeks to modify custody, the trial court must consider both sets of

custody factors. See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 82 (Pa. Super. 2011).

                                      -9-
J-S05032-24

       Throughout her arguments, Mother repeatedly challenges the weight

the trial court placed on testimony and evidence. It bears repeating that this

Court defers to the trial court on issues of credibility and weight of the

evidence, and we do not reweigh evidence. White, 296 A.3d at 1213; see

also TCO at 11 (trial court’s stating, “Father opposes Mother’s relocation for

several credible reasons”) (emphasis added). It is well-settled that “parties

cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial court places on evidence.” A.V.

v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).2

       1. School District and Transportation

       In her first issue, Mother argues the trial court erred by “refusing to

change [the] school district of [C]hild, which in turn significantly burdens

Mother with regard to transportation and negatively affects [C]hild.” Mother’s

Brief at 17. Mother claims that by “refusing to change [C]hild’s school district,

____________________________________________

2 Although our review is broad and deferential, child custody “is fluid and trial

courts are free to modify custody orders where modification serves a child’s
best interest in light of the best interest factors outlined in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328.”
K.D. v. E.D., 267 A.3d 1215, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2021).

       Pursuant to the Child Custody Act, a custody order may be
       modified at any time, provided the modification is in the best
       interest of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338(a) (“Upon petition, a
       court may modify a custody order to serve the best interest of the
       child.”); 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 (relating factors to determine child’s
       best interest). As we explained in Holler v. Smith, 928 A.2d 330,
       331–32 (Pa. Super. 2007), “[c]ustody matters are a special
       creature. … Unlike other actions which have a clear beginning,
       middle, and end, custody orders may be repeatedly modified.”

Id. at 1224 (emphasis in original).

                                          - 10 -
J-S05032-24

the Order [] more so punishes Mother for seeking relocation than it addresses

[C]hild’s best interests.” Id. at 18. Mother concedes “it [is] more feasible to

transport [C]hild to Forest Hills if she works part time, which is planned in

November 2023.”      Id. at 19. However, she asserts Father “would have a

much easier time” transporting Child to the Cambria Heights School District.

Id. Mother concludes the order “significantly burdens Mother with regard to

transportation and disregards [C]hild’s relationship with [his half-sister,]

R.H.[,] and his established patterns of care.” Id. at 23.

      The trial court found otherwise, and specifically concluded “Child’s best

interests would be served by granting Mother’s request for relocation but

allowing Child to continue attending the Forest Hills School District.” TCO at

3. The trial court addressed the statutory custody and relocation factors. Id.

at 7-24; 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5337(h)(1)-(10), 5328(a)(1)-(16). Regarding school

districts, the trial court explained:

      Mother believes Child could make friends in the Cambria Heights
      School District if she is permitted to relocate. N.T. [at] … 64-65.
      The [c]ourt finds this testimony to be self-serving and less
      relevant than the availability of family in the Forest Hills School
      District. Mother’s proposed relocation itself may be best for Child,
      because Child has essentially been living with Mother and
      Boyfriend in Carrolltown for the summer. However, relocating
      Child from his current school district where his [friends and
      cousins] attend — for the promise of attending school together
      with Half-Sister in six years — would likely cause significant
      upheaval for Child.

                                        ***

      Child has a loving relationship with [R.H., his] Half-Sister, who is
      an infant. Child enjoys being a big brother. This factor favors

                                        - 11 -
J-S05032-24

      Mother’s request for relocation. It does not favor Mother’s request
      for a change in school districts because of the significant age
      difference between the [two] children and the nearly six years
      until R.H. will attend school.

                                      ***

      Mother’s proposed relocation is based on her fourth serial
      relationship [in six years], with no plans to marry and no legal
      guarantee of housing. The relationship between Mother and
      Boyfriend — as it currently stands — is currently beneficial to Child
      and supports Mother’s proposed relocation. But it would be
      unwise to uproot Child from his known school district and his
      [friends and cousins who attend the same school] until there is
      more evidence that Mother’s relationship will last.

                                      ***

      Mother’s proposed residence in Carrolltown is 22 miles from
      Father’s home []. N.T. [at] … 21. … This factor … does not impact
      the choice-of-school issue.

TCO at 9, 15, 17, 20. Also, in an apparent reference to the August 3, 2023

letter from Mother’s counsel, the trial court noted that “Mother acknowledged

she could ensure Child’s attendance at the Forest Hills School District.” Id. at

24.

      We would conclude that the record supports the trial court’s findings.

For example, Mother testified that she has control over her work schedule.

See, e.g., N.T. at 19 (Mother’s stating she has “control over [a] later start”).

She stated that in November 2023, she would be “going part-time,” which she

described as “three days one week and two days the next.” Id. at 29-30; id.

at 92. Mother also testified that Maternal Great-Grandmother lives “three or

                                     - 12 -
J-S05032-24

four miles” from Father, and has been a resource for Child’s care.3             N.T.,

7/31/23, at 17.         Mother stated she did not “utilize [Maternal Great-

Grandmother] more than I have to. I only do it if I have to work or something,

but I always made sure it was very smooth.” Id. at 16. In the past, Maternal

Great-Grandmother “would take [Child] down to the school bus … [o]r if

[Mother] was working a later shift, she would get him off the bus and [Mother]

would be right home.” Id. at 16-17. Mother also stated she “would love to

be an ICU nurse, but they work crazy shifts. Because I have a son and now

a daughter, I picked a job that would better accommodate my child, my

children, [and] give them a better opportunity to be with me, as opposed to

… working crazy shifts, trying to find childcare [].” Id. at 73-74.

       Father    testified   to   frequently   interacting   with   Maternal   Great-

Grandmother “over the years of shared custody.” Id. at 112. He stated he

gets along well with her.         Id.   Father also testified that he had not met

Boyfriend, but believed “there’s a really good relationship [between Boyfriend

and Child, because Child] says nothing but good things about this guy.” Id.

Father expressed that his “only concern is I wish [Child] could be in a stable

environment, [], because there [have been] times he’s asked me [], Daddy,

where am I going to sleep tonight?” Id. Father opposed relocation because

“anywhere [Mother has] been [with a boyfriend] has never been stable.” Id.

____________________________________________

3 Father testified to his belief that Maternal Great-Grandmother “is in her 70s”

and healthy. Id. at 143.

                                          - 13 -
J-S05032-24

at 143. Father opined: “I don’t think it’s going to be a permanent relocation.”

Id. at 145.

       Father further testified that in addition to Maternal Great-Grandmother

living nearby, Mother’s father “lives within walking distance of the [Forest

Hills] elementary school,” and Father’s sister lives two miles from Father. Id.

at 113. Father’s mother also lives close and helps with Child’s care. Id. at

117.    After Father was injured at work, he began receiving worker’s

compensation; he expected he would be unable to work for “another six

months to a year.” Id. at 143.

       According to Father, Child is close friends with neighborhood children

and three of his male cousins, who are similar ages. Id. at 123. Child and

his cousins frequently play together and have sleepovers at each other’s

homes. Id. at 124. Father stated that Child has “been raised in the Forest

Hills area. All his family and friends are there. Everyone is close to school if

there’s an emergency.” Id. at 146.

       Father’s sister, Danielle Vivian, confirmed that she lives near Father,

and her three sons have a “close” and “unique” bond with Child. Id. at 163.

She stated that Child “has become more like my fourth child.” Id. Ms. Vivian

described Father as “a great father,” who is “patient” and “present.” Id. at

164. She testified that Father “provides for [Child,] not only financially, but

he provides and has provided security, stability, [and] support….” Id.

       We would conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s

determination that Child’s enrollment in the Forest Hills School District serves

                                     - 14 -
J-S05032-24

Child’s his best interests. We accept the trial court’s findings when they are

supported by the evidence, and defer to the trial court regarding credibility.

See C.A.J. v. D.S.M., 136 A.3d 504, 506 (Pa. Super. 2016). Also, we may

not reject the trial court’s reasonable conclusions. White, 296 A.3d at 1213.

Accordingly, we would discern no error in the trial court’s determinations

concerning    Child’s   school   district   and   Mother’s   responsibility   for

transportation.

      2. Mother’s Relationship History

      In her second issue, Mother argues the trial court erred by “fail[ing] to

consider all of the evidence and contradictory testimony related to Mother’s

relationship history.” Mother’s Brief at 24. Mother asserts “the trial court

clearly put a great deal of weight on its findings that Mother has instability in

her living arrangements and relationships[, and] said findings were

unreasonable.” Id. at 25. She states:

      While Mother did have three (3) boyfriends between her
      separation from Father and her current relationship with
      [Boyfriend], Mother did not live with any of them. Mother
      experienced abuse, both physical and psychological, at the hands
      of two (2) of the men she dated after separating from Father, but
      has not experienced any of the same issues since she stated
      dating [Boyfriend]. Mother and [Boyfriend] have been together
      for nearly three (3) years and together the two have a wonderful,
      steady, positive relationship. To not confuse and upset [C]hild,
      Mother waited nine (9) months to introduce him to [Boyfriend]
      after they began dating. [Boyfriend] and [C]hild have since
      developed a great relationship and enjoy spending time together.
      … Based upon the testimony given at the July 31, 2023 Relocation
      Trial, it is unclear how the trial court determined that “Mother’s
      relationship history creates concern about the longevity [of her
      and Boyfriend’s] union.”

                                     - 15 -
J-S05032-24

Mother’s Brief at 25-26 (citations to notes of testimony omitted). Mother also

claims   the   trial   court   “seemingly     disregarded”   information       about

“inconsistency in Father’s relationship with his girlfriend.” Id. at 26.

      Mother disagrees with the trial court’s conclusions, but there is evidence

to support them. Again, with “issues of credibility and weight of the evidence,

we must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the

witnesses first-hand.” E.C.S. v. M.C.S., 256 A.3d 449, 457 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(citation omitted).

      Father testified that he has lived in the same place and “only dated two”

women since he and Mother separated. N.T. at 157. The trial court noted

Father’s testimony about his belief that Mother’s relocation “will not be

permanent because       of Mother’s history      of post[-]separation[,]       serial

relationships.” TCO at 11 (citing N.T. at 145).

      Referencing both parties’ testimony, the trial court found:

      Mother engaged in a ten-month relationship with [A.H.] after the
      parties’ separation. N.T. [at] … 181. [A.H.] choked Mother in
      front of Child and slapped Child in the face. Id. [at] … 109.
      Mother denies that Child was present, id. [at] … 181-[]82,
      although the [t]rial [c]ourt does not deem this testimony to be
      credible in light of Mother’s assertions to Father. Mother ended
      the relationship. Id. [at] … 109.

TCO at 12. The court concluded:
      Mother has injected significant instability into Child’s life with her
      serial relationships after the parties[’] separation.              Her
      introduction of four men in six years has caused confusion for the
      nearly-eight-year-old [C]hild.       Although Mother’s current
      relationship has lasted longer than the others, it lacks security
      because Mother has no plans to marry and Boyfriend has not
      added her name to the property. Notwithstanding this, both

                                     - 16 -
J-S05032-24

      Mother and Father acknowledge that Boyfriend is a positive
      influence on Child. This factor favors Mother’s request to relocate
      but not the proposed change in school districts.

Id. 14-15.

      The record supports the trial court’s findings, and the court’s conclusions

regarding Mother’s relationship history are not unreasonable. Thus, the trial

court did not err in factoring Mother’s relationship history in its overall

determination regarding Child’s best interests. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1)-

(16); 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(1)-(10).            Mother’s issue concerning her

relationship history would not merit relief.

      3. Substitute Custody Schedule

      Mother next assails the trial court’s failure to “establish a substitute

custody schedule that will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between

[C]hild and Father.” Mother’s Brief at 28. Circling back to her first issue,

Mother emphasizes her testimony about a “custody schedule that would allow

Father to continue exercising similar custody time if her relocation was granted

and [C]hild was permitted to attend [the] Cambria Heights [School

District].” Id. at 30 (emphasis added).

      The trial court explained its rationale for the August 9, 2023 order. See

TCO at 7-24. In general, the trial court found:

      Mother’s proposed residence in Carrolltown is 22 miles from
      Father’s home and 20-25 miles from Mother’s residence[, where
      she previously lived,] with [Child’s] Maternal Great-Grandmother.
      N.T. [at] … 21. The increased distance between the parties does
      not significantly limit the available custody schedules, including an
      equal shared custody schedule. This factor favors Mother’s

                                     - 17 -
J-S05032-24

      proposed relocation, but it does not impact the choice-of-school
      issue.

Id. at 20.

      We discern no error, as Mother fails to “appreciate [this Court’s] role,

[and] the deferential standard of review that we must employ.” White, 296

A.3d at 1215. Similar to this case, in White, we explained:

      On appeal, Mother presents a litany of examples from the record
      as to why any given factor should have been counted in her favor
      instead of Father’s. See generally Mother’s Brief at 11-19. We
      need not restate those examples here; we do not disagree that
      these reasons could be persuasive. But whether Mother’s reasons
      are persuasive is not our call to make.

Id. Mother’s third issue would not merit relief.

      4. Father’s Motivation

      In her fourth and final issue, Mother argues the trial court erred by

“failing to consider Father’s true motivation in opposing Mother’s relocation.”

Mother’s Brief at 32. Mother claims:
      [T]he trial court failed to acknowledge Father’s true motivation in
      opposing Mother’s relocation in that he was angry and jealous that
      Mother and [Boyfriend] were dating and had a child together.
      While Father denied the same playing a role in opposing Mother’s
      relocation, Mother provided substantial testimony supporting her
      belief.

Id. at 33. Again, Mother’s issue involves the trial court’s role as factfinder

and this Court’s deferential review. “Appellate interference is unwarranted if

the trial court’s consideration of the Child’s best interests was careful and

thorough, and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion.” A.V., 87 A.3d

                                    - 18 -
J-S05032-24

at 820 (citation omitted). The evidence in this case supports the trial court’s

conclusions. Id. Upon review, we discern no error.

      Order affirmed.

4/11/2024

                                    - 19 -