No. 2349 EDA 207 2008 PA Super 111 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/29/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on August 17, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Civil Division, No. 05-03568
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BOWES AND COLVILLE,* JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Kevin Hogrelius (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on August 17, 2007, permitting Hilary Martin (“Mother”) to relocate with the parties’ daughter, Alisia Marie Hogrelius, from Chester County to McLean, Virginia. We affirm.
With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa.Super. 2005). This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all of the factors that may legitimately affect the “physical, intellectual, moral and
spiritual well-being” of the child. Id. (citations omitted). As we previously explained, “[t]here is no black letter formula that easily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.” Baldwin v. Baldwin, 710 A.2d 610, 614 (Pa.Super. 1998).
Father’s appeal challenges the trial court’s determination pursuant to Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa.Super. 1990), that Mother demonstrated relocation was in Alisia’s best interest. First, Father asserts that relocation would not substantially improve Alisia’s quality of life. Next,
Father argues that Mother’s proposed alternative custody arrangements are inadequate. For the following reasons, we disagree with both contentions.
As this Court recently reiterated, “[W]hen a custody case includes a request by one of the parents to relocate with the child, then the best interest analysis must incorporate the three factors originally summarized in Gruber[.]” Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724, 728 (Pa.Super. 2007). Those factors consider:
(1) the potential advantages of the proposed move and the
likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality
of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the
result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent;
(2) the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and
noncustodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to
prevent it; [and]
(3) the availability of realistic, substitute visitation
arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing
relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.
Id. (quoting Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa.Super. 2006)).
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here