NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

CATHERINE GILL 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

             

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-A27021-22  

v. 

EAN 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 

EFORE:   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. 

     

    S

   

 

 

  B

  

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 

children, Mother said, 

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

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 - 

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 

- 10 - 

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

 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). 

  3

____________________________________________ 

J-A27021-22 

J-A27021-22 

concerning.” Id.  

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

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

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 

Id. at 14. 

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

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

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. 

udgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/21/2023 

  J

    J

  D

 

____________________________________________ 

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 -