E.R. v. C.G.

J-S25042-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
E.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
C.G., :
:
Appellant : No. 2 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered December 5, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Civil Division at No(s): NO.062786
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 05, 2019
C.G. (“Father”) appeals from the Order granting the Petition filed by E.R.
(“Mother”), a physician-specialist, to allow Mother to relocate to St. Maarten
Island with the parties’ youngest child, S.G. (a female born in December
2002), so that Mother may accept employment at the American University of
the Caribbean School of Medicine (“AUC”).1 We affirm.
The trial court set forth the following factual background:
____________________________________________
1 We note that this Order continued the existing custody arrangement of
shared legal custody, with Mother having primary physical custody and Father
having partial physical custody. The specific custody schedules, however,
were changed as a result of the relocation. We additionally note that this
Order did not suspend provisions from an August 14, 2018 Interim Custody
Order that encourage, but do not mandate, counseling between S.G. and
Father, as well as the presence of another adult at any custodial visits between
S.G. and Father, unless and until S.G. decides that the presence of another
adult is not necessary.
J-S25042-19
[Mother] and [Father] were married [in] December [] 1997,
separated in January 2004[,] and divorced in December[] 2007.
The parties have three children, [a male, E.G., born in
February 1999; a male, A.G. born in December 2000; and S.G.
(collectively, the “Children”)]. [E.G.] is emancipated and
currently attending college. A.G. will soon turn eighteen (18) and
is not a subject of this litigation[,] since the proposed move is [at]
the end of May[] 2019[,] when he will be emancipated.
Consequently[,] only S.G. is the subject of this request.
After the parties separated[, M]other had primary custody
of all Children from January 2004 to the summer of 2012. At that
time, [E.G.] went to live with [] [F]ather. A.G. and S.G. continued
to live with [M]other.
Since the divorce[,] [M]other has moved several times. The
first was a relocation to Cleveland, [Ohio, for] a three[-]year
residency in Anatomical Pathology. … The second was to Little
Rock, [Arkansas,] for a one[-]year fellowship program in
Dermatopathology. The third [] was [for] a job at Greensboro
Pathology Associates in Greensboro, [North Carolina]. The next
move was from May 201[6] to the present[,] when she took a new
job at the Institute of Dermatopathology in Newtown Square,
[Pennsylvania]. Her current residence is in Chester Springs,
[Pennsylvania].
Father has resided in Mechanicsburg, [Pennsylvania,] during
the period after the separation and divorce.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/18, at 1.
On February 19, 2018, Mother served Father with a Notice of proposed
relocation of S.G. to St. Maarten in January 2019. On February 28, 2018,
Father filed a Counter-Affidavit objecting to the relocation. Thereafter, Mother
filed a Petition requesting a relocation hearing, which was held over the course
of two days, on August 16, 2018 and August 17, 2018.
-2-
J-S25042-19
At the hearing, Mother testified that she does not wish to continue her
current employment as a dermapathologist at the Institute for
Dermapathology, which she began in May 2016, and which she finds stressful.
See N.T., 8/16/18, at 7, 22, 28-29, 33. Mother testified that she earns
$425,000 per year. Id. at 42. She begins work at 8:00 a.m. and works until
5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. Id. at 31. During the two months preceding the
hearing, Mother was required to work on two Sundays for 4-5 hours. Id. at
32. Mother gets home at around 7:30 p.m.; she then eats dinner, recuperates
for an hour, and goes to bed. Id. At the time of the hearing, and for a few
years prior thereto, Mother worked part-time at the AUC in St. Maarten,
teaching pathology during five of her six weeks of vacation from her full-time
employment. Id. at 29, 34-35. Mother testified that she loves teaching at
AUC, and that she would prefer to work for AUC over her current employment.
Id. at 35-36. Mother’s position at AUC would require her to teach for an hour
and a half each day, and have office hours for five hours per week, with 11
and a half weeks of vacation. Id. at 139-42.
Mother testified that she and S.G. have a great relationship, spend a
significant amount of time talking, and do many activities together. Id. at
64-65.
In St. Maarten, S.G. would attend the Caribbean International Academy
(“CIA”), a Canadian preparatory school. Id. at 26, 50-51. According to
Mother, the CIA website provides that 90% of the school’s students go on to
-3-
J-S25042-19
universities in the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, the United
Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Id. at 74. The school has a diversified student
body. Id. at 73.
S.G. presently attends Downingtown East High School in the
Downingtown School District. Id. at 7, 72, 165-68. S.G. testified that St.
Maarten “[i]s going to be a better area to live in my opinion because I -– I
love exploring. I love adventures, you know, new things. I don’t exactly like
living here. It’s not my – it’s not my ideal location.” Id. at 177. S.G. stated
that it is her preference to move to St. Maarten with Mother. Id. at 163, 178.
S.G. testified that CIA would be a better school for her than the schools in
Pennsylvania because it would prepare her for travel or living outside of the
United States. Id. at 166.
Mother also testified that Father’s relationship with S.G. is non-existent.
Id. at 69, 80. Mother testified that S.G. told her in March 2018 that she is
afraid of Father. Id. at 45, 92, 94.
S.G. testified that she is very close with Mother, and she has lived with
Mother for her entire life. Id. at 170-72. S.G. stated that she is afraid of
Father because of his bad temper. Id. at 174-75. S.G. is willing to attend
counseling with Father, but is afraid to be alone with Father without another
adult being present. Id. at 174, 176-77. S.G. testified that she mainly
vacations with Father, and she does not spend much time with him while on
vacation. Id. at 173. S.G. stated that she is close with A.G., who does not
-4-
J-S25042-19
intend to enroll in a Pennsylvania college. Id. at 176. S.G. also testified that
she sees E.G. every several months, since he is attending Bloomsberg
University. Id. at 176; N.T., 8/17/18, at 20, 23. S.G. stated that she does
not want to live with Father in his house in Cumberland Valley, Pennsylvania,
and that she has been happy living with Mother. N.T., 8/16/18, at 181, 197.
S.G. testified that she would abide by a court order requiring her to
comply with Father’s partial custody periods after she relocates to St. Maarten.
Id. at 187. At the same time, S.G. acknowledged that she ignored Father’s
e-mail to her in July 2018 and refused to reply to him regarding her preference
for where she would spend summer vacation. Id. at 187. She also admitted
to an incident in the summer of 2018, prior to the hearing, in which she had
refused, along with A.G., to get into Father’s car for Father’s exercise of his
partial custody period. Id. at 188.
At the hearing on August 17, 2018, Father testified that he is the CEO
of an issue advocacy business. N.T., 8/17/18, at 2. Father testified that he
had a good relationship with S.G.’s sibling, A.G., until the summer of 2017,
when Mother did not provide A.G. to Father for his partial custody period. Id.
at 30-36, 43. Father testified that he had a “very wonderful” relationship with
S.G., until he withheld his permission for her to study abroad in France in
December 2017. Id. at 38-44.
Father testified that he last saw S.G. in May 2018, and that it did not go
well, as Father had offered S.G. a plan for her to spend the summer in New
-5-
J-S25042-19
Jersey, but she refused to speak with him about it. Id. at 47-49. Three weeks
prior to the hearing, Father sent S.G. a text message and a picture, to which
she did not respond. Id. at 47-48. Father stated that his attempts to pick up
S.G. for his partial custody periods during the summer of 2018 were fruitless,
as she would not be outside of Mother’s house when he arrived, then would
exit the house and stand at the top of the driveway, taunt him, and go back
into the house. Id. Mother refused Father’s request for her to intervene. Id.
Father testified that his relationship with S.G. would repair itself if she
would spend more time with him, but that the relocation to St. Maarten would
prevent such a reconciliation. Id. at 62. Father opposed the relocation
because it would have a negative impact on his relationship with S.G., and he
fears that his relationship will be non-existent if S.G. relocates to St. Maarten.
Id. at 61-62.
Father also testified that the relocation would have a negative impact
on S.G.’s relationship with E.G. and A.G., as well as her friends and relatives.
Id. at 61. Father testified that he would not be able to participate in S.G.’s
school activities. Id. at 57. Father also testified that, were S.G. to live with
him, the school system S.G. would attend in Pennsylvania, Cumberland Valley
School District, is superior to the school in St. Maarten, and that he would be
willing to pay for S.G. to attend the nearby Camp Hill School District. Id. at
58-59.
-6-
J-S25042-19
Father also testified regarding his concern that Mother would not comply
with a custody order directing her to return S.G. to the United States for his
partial custody periods, and that he would be unable to gain Mother’s
compliance with any custody order. Id. at 68-69. Additionally, Father
complained that Mother’s proposed custodial schedule provided him less time
with S.G. than he currently has in the existing custody order, and that he
would have to spend a significant amount of money to exercise his partial
custody periods. Id. at 65.
S.G.’s Guardian ad litem (“GAL”) testified that, after speaking with S.G.,
whom he found to be extremely bright and mature, and considering the
relocation factors mandated by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5537(h), he believed it would
be in S.G.’s best interest to relocate with Mother, and inidicated that S.G. had
expressed her preference to relocate with Mother. Id. at 143, 145.
On December 5, 2018, the trial court entered an Order granting Mother’s
Petition for relocation and continuing the October 8, 2012 Custody Order
awarding shared legal custody to the parties, primary physical custody of S.G.
to Mother, and partial physical custody to Father.
On December 26, 2018, Father timely filed a Notice of Appeal, along
with a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of on
appeal.
On appeal, Father raises the following claims for our review:
A. Did the trial court err in allowing Mother[] to relocate with
[S.G.] to St. Maarten in the Caribbean and inappropriately
-7-
J-S25042-19
apply[ing] the [] relocation factors [] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.]
§ 5337(h)[?]
B. Did [the] trial court err in entering an [O]rder modifying the
existing custody [O]rder[] without reviewing the [] factors
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5328[?]
Father’s Brief at 6.
In reviewing a custody order, 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.
C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
The 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.
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Jackson
v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
We begin our analysis with 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337, which requires that a
trial court consider the following factors when reviewing a proposed relocation
of a minor child, giving weighted consideration to those affecting the safety of
a child:
-8-
J-S25042-19
(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.
(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).
-9-
J-S25042-19
When rendering a decision on the proposed relocation, trial courts must
delineate the reasons for [the] decision[,] on the record[,] in open
court[,] or in a written opinion or order.
…
In expressing the reasons for [the] decision, there is no required
amount of detail for the trial court’s explanation; all that is
required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that
the custody decision is based on those considerations.
A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 822-23 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotation
marks omitted).
Father claims that the trial court failed to appropriately consider the
relocation factors required by Section 5337(h). See Father’s Brief at 19-44.
In his brief, Father provides a lengthy discourse as to why each factor
disfavors relocation. See id. Father’s argument can be characterized as
essentially asking this Court to reweigh and rebalance the evidence considered
by the trial court. See id. In conducting our review, we emphasize the
following portions of Father’s argument, each of which he contends weighs
against relocation:
 Father claims that his “strained and non-existent”
relationship with S.G. is “entirely the doing of Mother,” as
Mother set “Father up to be the fall guy,” in numerous
respects. Id. at 21-22.
 Father claims that the Pennsylvania schools S.G. would
attend, should she live with him, are far superior to the
“Canadian-type” school S.G. would attend in St. Maarten.
Id. at 24. Additionally, Father claims that the trial court
ascribed unwarranted weight to Mother’s evidence of the St.
Maarten school’s “superiority,” as the evidence was the
result of a quick Internet search. Id. at 25.
 Father claims that the trial court empowered Mother by
failing to find her in willful contempt at various times in the
- 10 -
J-S25042-19
past and by permitting Mother to relocate to St. Maarten
because she is “stressed” in her current employment. Id.
at 29. Father claims that the trial court failed to adequately
consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances,
there is a reasonable likelihood that, in the nineteen months
between the proposed relocation and S.G.’s eighteenth
birthday, Mother will comply with any order pertaining to
Father’s partial custody. Id. Father also questions the
genuineness of S.G.’s testimony that she would travel to
Pennsylvania to participate in Father’s partial custody time.
Id. at 30-31. Father further contends that the trial court’s
confidence that Mother and S.G. will obey the trial court
Order is misplaced. Id. at 31.
 Father claims that S.G. mistakenly believes she will be living
in paradise and that the situation will not work out for her.
Id. at 32.
 Father claims that Mother has marginalized him and failed
to encourage S.G.’s relationship with him. Id. at 34. Father
contends that Mother condoned S.G.’s disrespectful texts
and voicemail messages to Father, undermined Father’s
authority by filing a Petition seeking court approval for S.G.
to study in France over Father’s objection, and was complicit
in S.G.’s refusal to participate in Father’s periods of partial
physical custody. Id. at 35.
 Father claims that Mother’s relocation was motivated by her
own pursuit of happiness, without consideration of
preserving the relationship between Father and S.G. Id. at
38-39.
 Father claims that Mother’s reduced stress level and greater
availability is not evidence of an improved quality of life for
S.G. Id. at 39.
 Father claims that Mother’s motivation in relocating is to
further distance Father’s relationship with S.G. Id. at 41-
43. Father highlights Mother’s history of relocation and her
failure to investigate other “less stressful” employment
opportunities in Pennsylvania. Id.
 Father did not consider past abuse, present abuse, or other
factors affecting S.G.’s best interest as relevant. Id. at 44.
- 11 -
J-S25042-19
Our review of the record indicates that the trial court fully considered
each of the relocation factors enumerated in Section 5337(h). See Trial Court
Opinion, 12/5/18, at 2-6 (unpaginated). We specifically note the following
analysis by the trial court:
 With regard to the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and
duration of S.G.’s relationship with Father, the trial court found
that relocation would not harm the already “extremely strained
and non-existent” relationship with Father. Id. at 2. With
regard to S.G.’s siblings and grandparents, both paternal and
maternal, the trial court found that relocation would not impede
the occasional visits S.G. has with her family members, as her
siblings are away at college, visits with her grandparents
typically occur through Mother, and the current lines of
communication—namely text, email, or phone—would still be
available upon relocation. Id.
 With regard to S.G.’s age, developmental stage, and needs, as
well as the impact of the relocation on her physical, educational
and emotional development, the trial court found that S.G.
wants to move with Mother, not because it is a “[p]aradise,”
but because she “clearly wants to live with her mother.” Id.
at 3 The trial court noted S.G.’s maturity, intelligence, and
poise, as well as her adventurous spirit and desires to
experience other parts of the world. Id. As to the effect of the
relocation on her educational development, the trial court
found that S.G. dislikes her current school because of its size
and is enthralled by the prospect of going on to study in
Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, or the
Netherlands. Id.
 With regard to the feasibility of preserving S.G.’s relationship
with Father, the trial court found that there is a “minimal to
non-existent” relationship that would be beyond repair, should
Father force S.G. to live with him in Pennsylvania. Id.
Additionally, the trial court noted that the proposed custody
schedule is very generous to Father; Father is financially secure
with easy access to major, international airports; and that the
legal system is capable of enforcing the custody orders in St.
Maarten. Id.
- 12 -
J-S25042-19
 With regard to S.G.’s preference to live with Mother, the trial
court found S.G. to be extremely intelligent and mature. Id.
at 4.
 With regard to whether Mother and Father have repeatedly
promoted or thwarted S.G.’s relationship with the other parent,
the trial court found both Mother and Father to have behaved
questionably in the past. Id.
 With regard to whether the relocation would enhance Mother’s
quality of life, including monetary or emotional benefits as well
as educational opportunities, the trial court found that Mother
would not be able to pursue a career in academics in the United
States as freely as she could in St. Maarten. Id. Specifically,
the trial court found that Mother would be required to continue
practicing medicine in the U.S., should she become a professor.
Id. In the Caribbean, however, Mother could be a professor
without having to work in the clinical sphere. Id.
 With regard to whether the relocation would enhance S.G.’s
quality of life, including monetary or emotional benefits as well
as educational opportunities, the trial court found that
relocation would clearly do so. Id. at 5. The trial court noted
that life in a foreign country would allow her to learn other
cultures and become fluent in another language; receive
greater academic attention at a smaller school; and spend
more quality time with Mother than she currently does, as
Mother’s stress-load and work-load will be reduced. Id.
 With regard to the motivations of Mother and Father, the trial
court found that both parties’ positions were rooted in logic.
Id. The trial court noted that “Mother hates her job and has
found one that she believes is her dream job. Father loves S.G.
[] [and h]e wants to be part of her life.” Id. As a result, the
trial court found this factor to neither favor, nor disfavor,
relocation. Id.
 With regard to a history of abuse, the trial court found it to be
a non-issue that neither favored, nor disfavored, relocation.
Id.
 With regard to any other factor affecting S.G.’s best interest,
the trial court found that S.G.’s GAL recommended the
- 13 -
J-S25042-19
relocation, as he believed it to be in S.G.’s best interest. Id.
at 5-6.
As demonstrated, the trial court conducted a comprehensive analysis of
the relocation factors provided in Section 5337(h). Father essentially asks
this Court to re-weigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Father’s Brief
at 19-44; see also C.R.F., supra, at 8 (stating that this Court’s “role does
not include making independent factual determinations.”). This is not a case
where the trial court failed to consider the Section 5337(h) relocation factors,
broke the continuity of Father’s relationship with S.G. and his participation in
her life, or gave undue weight to Mother’s role as having been the primary
caretaker S.G. for the past 16 years. As the trial court properly observed, the
evidence at the hearing showed that the relocation would not affect any
relationship between Father and S.G., since any arguable relationship between
them is fraught with difficulties caused by the interaction between them over
the years, and not solely attributable to Mother, as Father argues.
We discern no error of law or abuse of the trial court’s discretion in
rendering its determination that the relocation factors under Section 5337(h)
favor relocation. The trial court’s legal conclusions are sound, and its findings
are supported by competent evidence of record; thus, this Court must accept
the findings of the trial court. See C.R.F., supra, at 8.
In his second issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to
consider S.G.’s best interest under Section 5328(a). Father’s Brief at 44-46.
- 14 -
J-S25042-19
The trial court correctly states, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, that
Father never raised this issue at the relocation hearing. Trial Court Opinion,
1/29/19, at 1 (unpaginated). As a result, Father has waived this issue on
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the lower
court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
For the reasons detailed above, we affirm the trial court Order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/05/2019
- 15 -