## Facts

- The parents divorced in 1994 and shared legal custody of their daughter (born April 1992), with mother having primary physical custody under prior orders.
- Mother moved to Pennsylvania with court approval; father remained in Delaware.
- A September 2003 agreed order in Pennsylvania maintained the existing arrangement: mother had primary physical custody; father had partial physical custody (every other weekend and one weekday afternoon).
- The parents had ongoing conflict marked by poor communication and repeated court involvement.
- Mother’s new husband accepted employment in Virginia (January 2004), and mother sought to relocate there with the child, increasing the travel distance to father’s home and affecting the existing schedule.
- Father filed a custody-modification petition (December 2003); mother filed a relocation petition (January 2004).
- After a consolidated hearing, the trial court denied relocation and awarded father primary physical custody, transferring primary custody from mother to father.
- Mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying mother’s petition to relocate with the child to Virginia.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in transferring primary physical custody from mother to father after denying relocation.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of mother’s relocation petition.
- The appellate court reversed the award of primary physical custody to father.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling consideration in custody disputes is the child’s best interests; appellate review is broad, but reversal requires an abuse of discretion.
- A proposed relocation by the custodial parent must be evaluated under relocation factors, including the move’s advantages, each parent’s motives, and the feasibility of preserving the noncustodial parent’s relationship through realistic custody arrangements.
- Relocation and custody modification are distinct determinations; denying relocation does not, by itself, justify transferring primary physical custody.
- A custody change must rest on a fact-specific best-interests analysis considering all relevant welfare factors; a court may not change custody to reward or punish parental choices.
- A preference for a “traditional” or two-parent household, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis to uproot a child from a long-standing primary custodial home.
- A child’s stated preference and the value of continuity in home and school are relevant factors that must be meaningfully weighed, particularly for an older, articulate child.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s determination that relocation would harm the father-child relationship and disrupt the established schedule, but it ruled that transferring primary custody to father was not supported by an adequate best-interests analysis where the rationale relied heavily on father’s remarriage and household composition rather than a sufficient showing that a custody change was necessary for the child’s welfare.


Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004)