caretaker doctrine in Pennsylvania

36 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1994–2025 9 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
M.J.M. v. M.L.G.green pasuperct · 2013 · cited in 23 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025 2 sentences 2025While a parent’s role in caring for a child may be considered in light of the statutory factors, “the primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable.” M.J.M., 63 A.3d 331 at 339 . ____________________________________________ 7 Our General Assembly enacted significant amendments to the custody factors “pursuant to Act of April 15, 2024, P.L. 24, No. 8 (known as ‘Kayden’s Law’).” Velasquez v. Miranda, 321 A.3d 876 , 886 n.6 (Pa. 2024); see 2024 Pa. Legis. 2024While a parent’s role in caring for a child may be considered in light of the statutory factors, “the primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable.” M.J.M., 63 A.3d 331 at 339.	14	23
Durning v. Balent/Kurdillagreen pasuperct · 2011 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015 2 sentences 2015See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”) [citation omitted]; Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 -3- J-A33006-14 Relevant to the case at bar, at this juncture, due in large part to the child’s age, Mother’s ability to meet the child’s daily needs and the child’s need for stability and continuity weigh in favor of a gradual increase in custody. 2015See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa.Super.2011) (“When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”) [citation omitted]; Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 on n. 4 (Pa.Super.2007) (same), Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 473 (Pa.Super.2006) (same).	3	3
Wiseman v. Wallgreen pasuperct · 1998 · cited in 5 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2003–2024 2 sentences 2018April 27, 2018) (holding that the shared custody factors set forth in Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998), which predated the 2011 amendments to the custody law, assimilated into the custody factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)); see also M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013)(“We simply cannot graft the judicially-created primary caretaker doctrine on to the inquiry that the legislature has established, and so we conclude that the primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable.”). 2005See Wiseman, 718 A.2d at 847 (explaining that "the primary caretaker doctrine also includes the ... quantity of care actually given to the child by the parent as opposed to the supervisory care by others while in the parent's custody”). .It is obvious to this Court how the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Fisher and Mumma , in which shared custody orders were found inappropriate.	2	5
Collins v. Collinsgreen pasuperct · 2006 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015 2 sentences 2015See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa.Super.2011) (“When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”) [citation omitted]; Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 on n. 4 (Pa.Super.2007) (same), Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 473 (Pa.Super.2006) (same). 2013See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa.Super.2011) ("When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must "give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”); Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 n. 4 (Pa.Super.2007) (same), Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 473 (Pa.Super.2006) (same).	2	2
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Jordan v. Jordangreen pa · 1982 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2005–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2005Father-appellee correctly points out that Jordan , in dictum, explicitly excepted shared custody situations from the primary caretaker doctrine. 448 A.2d at 1115, n. 2 .	2	2
Mumma v. Mummagreen pa · 1988 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2005–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	2
Marshall v. Marshallgreen pasuperct · 2002 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2007–2013 2 sentences 2013In this regard, we first note that while “the primary caretaker doctrine requires the trial court to give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker, and is one of many factors for the trial court to consider when determining the best interests of a child,” Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d 1226, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2002) (quotation marks omitted), the considerations encompassed by the doctrine have been “woven into the statutory factors, such that they have become part and parcel of the mandatory inquiry.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d at 339 . “[T] he primary caretaker doc 2007Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2002).	1	2
Carrero, J. v. Lopez, A.green pasuperct · 2023 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024See M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also P.J.P. v. M.M., 185 A.3d 412 (Pa. Super. 2018); and see Carrero v. Lopez, 300 A.3d 494, 499 (Pa. Super. 2023). 2024See Carrero, 300 A.3d at 499 (discussing Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844, 851 (Pa. Super. 1998)).6 ____________________________________________ 6 Father’s quotation of Johns did not include a pin cite, but he noted the omission of certain internal quotations contained in the Johns excerpt.	1	1
P.J.P. v. M.M.green pasuperct · 2018 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See P.J.P. v. M.M., 185 A.3d 413, 419-20 (Pa. Super. 2018); see also M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that this Court “simply cannot graft the judicially-created primary caretaker doctrine on to the inquiry that the legislature has established [in Section 5328(a)], and so we conclude that the primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable”).	1	1
W.C.F. v. M.G.green pasuperct · 2015 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See W.C.F. v. M.G., 2015 PA Super 102 (Pa. Super. 2015); M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 338 (Pa. Super. 2013).	1	1
Schwarcz v. Schwarczgreen pa · 1988 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Wheeler v. Mazurgreen pasuperct · 2002 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Gonzalez v. Gonzalezgreen pa · 1984 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Haag v. Haaggreen pa · 1984 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Wiskoski v. Wiskoskigreen pasuperct · 1993 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Kirkendall v. Kirkendallgreen pasuperct · 2004 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Masser v. Millergreen pasuperct · 2006 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013In that case, this Court held that in cases involving an award of primary custody “where two natural parents are both fit, and the child is of tender years, the trial court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker.” Id. at 1115 (emphasis added); see also Masser v. Miller, 913 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.2006); Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261, 1264 (Pa.Super.2004); Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 935 (Pa.Super.2002); Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa.Super. 531 , 629 A.2d 996, 999 (Pa.Super.1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 646 , 639 A.2d 33 (1994) (“[The pri	1	1
Fisher v. Fishergreen pa · 1988 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Fisher involved a yearly rotating shared custody order for a school-age child who had been with his father as primary caretaker for four years. 535 A.2d at 1164, 1165-66 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Ad v. Mab green pasuperct · 2010 2 sentences 2019Further, while a parent’s role in caring for a child may be considered in light of the statutory factors, “the primary caretaker doctrine, insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable.” Id. 2018Further, while a parent’s role in caring for a child may be considered in light of the statutory factors, “the primary caretaker doctrine, - 22 - J-A07036-18 insofar as it required positive emphasis on the primary caretaker’s status, is no longer viable.” Id.	4	2018–2020
Klos v. Klos green pasuperct · 2007 2 sentences 2015See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”) [citation omitted]; Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 -3- J-A33006-14 Relevant to the case at bar, at this juncture, due in large part to the child’s age, Mother’s ability to meet the child’s daily needs and the child’s need for stability and continuity weigh in favor of a gradual increase in custody. 2015See, e.g., Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125, 1129 (Pa.Super.2011) (“When conducting a best-interests analysis, a court must give positive consideration to the parent who has been the primary caregiver.”) [citation omitted]; Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 , 729 on n. 4 (Pa.Super.2007) (same), Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 473 (Pa.Super.2006) (same).	3	2013–2015
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Spriggs v. Carson green pa · 1977 2 sentences 1994Even more significant is the judicially approved doctrine of the primary caretaker which provides an alternative to any presumptions based on the standard of the best interest of the child and filling the void created by Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290 , 368 A.2d 635 (1977), which abrogated the tender years doctrine. 1994Even more significant is the judicially approved doctrine of the primary caretaker which provides an alternative to any presumptions based on the standard of the best interest of the child and filling the void created by Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290 , 368 A.2d 635 (1977), which abrogated the tender years doctrine.	2	1994–1994
C.R.F. v. S.E.F green pasuperct · 2012 1 sentence 2021We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and because the record supports the trial court’s reasonable findings and those findings were not the result of an error of law, we accept the trial court’s findings and decline to reweigh the evidence. 3 See C.R.F., supra ____________________________________________ 3 We reject Father’s argument presented in his second issue regarding the court’s alleged improper reliance on the primary caretaker doctrine in its analysis of the third and fourth custody factors.	1	2021–2021
Ketterer v. Seifert green pasuperct · 2006 2 sentences 2020Cf. M.J.M. 63 A.3d at 338-39 (noting that the amendments to Section 5328(a) abrogated the primary caretaker doctrine to the extent it created “an additional consideration that would tip the scales in favor of the primary caretaker in a situation where the trial court deemed both parents to be fit to act as a primary custodian”); Ketterer, 902 A.2d at 539 ____________________________________________ 5We add that although Father asserts that the trial court failed to consider evidence of Mother’s history of drug and alcohol abuse, the record contains no references to Mother’s use of drugs or alc 2020Cf. M.J.M. 63 A.3d at 338-39 (noting that the amendments to Section 5328(a) abrogated the primary caretaker doctrine to the extent it created “an additional consideration that would tip the scales in favor of the primary caretaker in a situation where the trial court deemed both parents to be fit to act as a primary custodian”); Ketterer, 902 A.2d at 539 ____________________________________________ 5We add that although Father asserts that the trial court failed to consider evidence of Mother’s history of drug and alcohol abuse, the record contains no references to Mother’s use of drugs or alc	1	2020–2020
Swope v. Swope green pasuperct · 1997 2 sentences 2006Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264 (1997); Wiseman v. Wall, supra at 847 . 2006Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264 (1997); Wiseman v. Wall, supra at 847 .	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5328 (16) PA § 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5323 (5) PA § 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337 (5) PA § 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5321 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 36 (1994–2025) WV 24 (1983–2005) ND 17 (1986–2023) MN 7 (1986–1990) OH 5 (1989–2005) VI 2 (2014–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check