Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-2137 civil ROBERT SCOTT PIERCE ·IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ·CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V· ROBIN L. PUCKETT · 2137 CIVIL 1987 IN RE: CUSTODY OPINION ,.,. ItOFFER, J. In this opinion we address Mother's request for permission to relocate with her minor daughter, Christine Pierce, date of birth July 2, 1984, and family, and Father's counterclaim for custody of Christine· The events giving rise to Mrs. Puckett's petition are as follows: Mrs. Puckett's husband injured his back while working as a bread delivery driver and became permanently disabled from doing any kind of heavy work. Living off disability compensation, he returned to college and received his Bachelor's degree in Secondary Education Social Studies in May 'of 1997. After an extensive job search in several areas of the country, including Central Pennsylvania, the only job offered to Mrs. Puckett's husband was one in Cheatham County, Tennessee. He accepted the employment in Tennessee and Mrs. Puckett filed a Petition to Modify the Existing Order, asking leave to relocate. A hearing was held on March 25, 1998, where Mrs. Puckett's daughter, Christine, testified that she preferred to move to Tennessee. The family had visited Tennessee, Christine liked it and looked forward to the prospect of meeting new 2131 CIVIL 1987 people. She was enthusiastic about the relocation despite the fact that she would be leaving her friends in Central Pennsylvania. The uncompleted hearing was continued to May 29, 1998, at which time Mr. Puckett testified that he did not commit to teaching in the next school year by the deadline given to him by the Cheathem County School District, due to the delay in the hearings. The principal of the school testified that even if Mr. Puckett had committed to teach the following year, there was no guarantee of a job for him because of declining enrollment. After inquiring about the availability of jobs in schools in Central Pennsylvania again, and discovering there weren't any jobs, the Pucketts considered relocating to Texas. Testimony was provided at the May 29, 1998, hearing that Mother's step-father offered Mr. Puckett a job with his company in Dallas, Texas, if he could not secure a teaching position. Mr. Puckett has interviewed with four schools in Texas and thinks it likely that he will secure a teaching position, but if he doesn't, he has a secure alternative. Testimony was also provided that Respondent's mother and step-father reside in the Dallas, Texas, area and they own 8 acres of land in the area on which they were willing to assist the Pucketts in building a home. Respondent testified that they could build a much nicer home in Texas than anywhere else in the country because her 2131 CIVIL 1987 parents owned the land and her father's company would finish out the interior of the house at no cost. With her mother nearby to help watch the children, Respondent testified that she would have an opportunity to return to college, finish getting her degree in education, and prepare herself for employment (teaching) when her youngest child is ready to attend school. Christine testified that she ,.. liked the idea of moving to Texas even more than Tennessee because she would be close to her grandmother and cousins, with whom she has a close relationship. DISCUSSION The task of a court in relocation custody disputes "is to sacrifice the non- custodial parent's interests as little as possible in the face of the competing and often compelling interest of a custodial parent who seeks a better life in another location." Gruber v. Gruber., 583 A.2d 439 (Pa. Super. 1990). In performing this task, the court should focus on the primary custodial family because it is the family central and most important to the child's best interests. Id. "What is advantageous to the unit as a whole, to each of its members individually and to the way they relate to each other and function together is obviously in the best interest in the child." Id._~. (Citing D'Onofrio, 365 A.2d 29.) The Court is required to consider the following factors in deciding whether a custodial parent should be permitted to relocate at a geographical distance from a non-custodial parent: 2131 CIVIL 1987 1. The potential advantages of the proposed move, economic or otherwise 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 parents; 2. The integrity of the motives of both the custodial and non-custodial parent in either seeking to move, or seeking to prevent it; and, 3. The availability of realistic, substitute visitation agreements which will foster adequately an ongoing relationship between the child and the non- custodial parent. Id. In reviewing the Gruber test in light of the facts before us, it is clear that Mother's relocation with her minor daughter, Christine, to Texas would improve their quality of life. The employment of Mr. Puckett, whether it be teaching or working with Respondent's step-father, improves the quality of life for the entire family. Mrs. Puckett would have the opportunity to build her family a much nicer home than would be otherwise available to them because her parents would provide the land to build the home and her step father's company would help finish the interior of the house at no cost. The Respondent, with the close proximity of her mother, would have an opportunity to finish her degree and find employment 4 2131 CIVIL 1987 as a teacher which would also undoubtedly improve the quality of life for the family. And Christine has enthusiastically agreed to the move so she could be closer to her grandparents and cousins. Indeed, the facts show that relocating to Texas is an ideal situation for the Pucketts and Christine, that would substantially improve their quality of life and, consequently, Respondent has met the first prong of the test set forth in Gruber. The integrity of the motives of the Respondent in seeking to relocate appear to be quite sound. The record shows that the Respondent and her husband made sedous attempts to find Mr. Puckett a teaching job in Central Pennsylvania and only turned to relocating their family when it became clear that jobs were not available in the area. There is no testimony on the record that would question Respondent's motives to relocate or suggest that the relocation is an attempt to frustrate Mr. Pierce's access to his daughter. Relocation for the Respondent and her family is simply in the best interests of her daughter, Christine, and the rest of her family. Mr. Pierce's motives in attempting to stop and delay relocation are questionable and appear to be vindictive. In the past, Mr. Pierce has made several attempts to gain primary custody of his minor daughter since his first complaint for custody in July of 1987. Mr. Pierce has petitioned the Court 2131 CIVIL 1987 numerous times to modify the existing custody order and award him primary custody of Christine. Despite these petitions, Mr. Pierce has never been awarded primary custody of Christine and Mrs. Puckett has remained primary custodian. In addition to the numerous petitions to modify the custody order, Mr. Pierce has petitioned the Coud to hold Mrs. Puckett in contempt of a Court Order with respect to partial custody/visitation of Christine on three occasions, all of which were dismissed. More recently, in what appears to be an attempt to delay Mrs. Puckett's relocation with Christine and her family, Mr. Pierce has made several motions for continuance and delaying hearing dates. In light of these facts, we question Mr. Pierce's motives in attempting to prevent Mrs. Puckett's relocation. We are not without sympathy for Mr. Pierce's love for his daughter. But what is best for Mr. Pierce is not at issue in this case and we feel that, through his actions, Mr. Pierce has put his own needs and desires before what is best for his daughter. The last prong of Gruber has been met because it is clear that substitute visitation arrangements, that will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between Mr. Pierce and his daughter, are available. Mr. Pierce will have partial custody of Christine on alternating holidays and for five weeks in the summer, with Mrs. Puckett and him sharing the costs of transportation pursuant to the Court's most recent order. 6 2131 CIVIL 1987 We conclude that all three prongs of the test set forth in .Gruber are met in the present case and Mrs. Puckett is entitled to relocate with her daughter to Ennis, Texas. 7