sixteen custody factors in Pennsylvania

2024A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 836 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2023A.M.S. v. M.R.C., 70 A.3d 830, 836 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2026See A.V., 87 A.3d at 822-23 (holding that if the proposed relocation would result in a change in custody, the court must consider all of the sixteen custody factors in section 5328(a) as well as all of the relocation factors set forth in section 5337(h)).

2023A.V., 87 A.3d at 822 (citation omitted); see also id. at 823 (stating that Section 5323(d) applies to cases involving custody and relocation and “requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory assessment of the [. . .] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.”) (citations omitted). - 12 - J-A11002-23 Instantly, in its opinion accompanying the subject order, the trial court set forth its assessment of the ten relocation factors and the sixteen custody factors.

2021T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873, 881-882 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc).4 Specifically, Mother claims the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the hearing officer’s report and recommendation which did not assess the sixteen custody factors set forth in Section 5328 of the Custody Act.

2021T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873, 881-882 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc).4 Specifically, Mother claims the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the hearing officer’s report and recommendation which did not assess the sixteen custody factors set forth in Section 5328 of the Custody Act.

2015Wailers v. Wailers, 757 A.2d 966, 967 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2015Wailers [Watters ] v. Wailers [Watters ], 757 A.2d 966, 967 (Pa.Super.2000).

2021We reasoned that if the litigant was forced to take an appeal without the benefit of the trial court’s rationale, then the litigant would be in an untenable position of having “to guess as to which information the trial court found pertinent, and how the evidence informed the court’s analysis of the Act’s sixteen custody factors.” C.B. 65 A.3d at 955 . “[I]f the party guesses wrong, and omits discussion of an issue or fact that the trial court later states that it found to be pertinent, that issue may be waived.” Id.

2021We reasoned that if the litigant was forced to take an appeal without the benefit of the trial court’s rationale, then the litigant would be in an untenable position of having “to guess as to which information the trial court found pertinent, and how the evidence informed the court’s analysis of the Act’s sixteen custody factors.” C.B. 65 A.3d at 955 . “[I]f the party guesses wrong, and omits discussion of an issue or fact that the trial court later states that it found to be pertinent, that issue may be waived.” Id.

2026See J.R.M., 33 A.3d at 652 .

2026See M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that the trial court was not required to address the section 5328(a) custody factors where it decided a “discrete and narrow issue ancillary to a materially unchallenged custody arrangement”).

2026See id. at 1063 .

2025See id.

2024See Trial Ct. Op., 2/29/24, at 10; see also S.S., 189 A.3d at 1098 . 10 In her brief, Mother argues that Father’s second and third issues are moot because Mother, in reliance on the trial court’s February 29, 2024 order, completed the relocation with Children to New Market, Maryland.

2023Pa.R.E. 611(a) (trial court shall “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to,” inter alia, “make those procedures effective for determining the truth” and “avoid wasting time”); Purnell, 259 A.3d at 985; see also Graves, 265 A.3d at 700 (trial court is required to set forth its consideration of all custody factors with its custody order).

2023See Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2023Prothonotary Date: 03/02/2023 ____________________________________________ 3 To the extent Appellant raises a weight claim in his “conclusion,” we reiterate that “with regard to the credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first- hand.” C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). 4We further note that we reviewed the trial court’s July 13, 2022 Decision and Order and conclude that the court thoroughly considered the evidence presented at the custody hearing, including Mother’s positive

2021We have elaborated: In expressing the reasons for its 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.” M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331, 336 (Pa. Super. 2013) appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 (Pa. 2013).