consideration of all factors in Pennsylvania

2025The Superior Court has stated that “the paramount concern is the best interest of the child based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2006) (cting Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264, 265 (Pa. Super. 1997)).

2013It is well established that the court’s primary concern in any custody proceeding is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors “that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing.” Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264, 265 (Pa. Super. 1997).

2024“The paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the -9- J-A28006-23 child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

2024“The paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the -9- J-A28006-23 child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Wheeler v. Mazur, 793 A.2d 929 , 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

2005E.A.L. v. L.J.W, 443 Pa. Super. 573, 580 , 662 A.2d 1109, 1112 (1995).

2005E.A.L. v. L.J.W, 443 Pa. Super. 573, 580 , 662 A.2d 1109, 1112 (1995).

2019“Further, as we have stated many times before, the paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing.” Id. at 838– 39 (citations and quotations omitted). “[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” Billhime v. Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031, 1036 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

2009“Further, as we have stated many times before, the paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing.” Id. at 838-39 (citations and quotations omitted). ¶ 6 “[0]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demean- or of the witnesses.” Billhime v. Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031, 1036 (Pa.Super.2005) (citation omitted).

2026See Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2026See Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2025The Superior Court has stated that “the paramount concern is the best interest of the child based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2006) (cting Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264, 265 (Pa. Super. 1997)).

2010Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997); citing Myers v. DiDomenico, 441 Pa. Super. 341 , 657 A.2d 956, 957 (1995). (2) In a custody dispute, a trial court must determine what arrangement is in the best interest of the child, conducting a searching inquiry into all facts and circumstances having an impact on the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.

2003The ultimate test is "whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record." Silfies, 713 A.2d at 642 (citation omitted). ¶ 6 Furthermore, it is axiomatic that "[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being." Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587, 591 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997).

2003The ultimate test is “whether the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Silfies, 713 A.2d at 642 (citation omitted). ¶ 6 Furthermore, it is axiomatic that “[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587, 591 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997).

2015Id.

2005“Further, on the issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge.” Additionally, “appellate interference is allowed only where it is found that the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.” Arnold v. Arnold 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super.2004) (citations omitted). ¶ 14 It is axiomatic that the paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interest of the child, based upon a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.

2010Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997); citing Myers v. DiDomenico, 441 Pa. Super. 341 , 657 A.2d 956, 957 (1995). (2) In a custody dispute, a trial court must determine what arrangement is in the best interest of the child, conducting a searching inquiry into all facts and circumstances having an impact on the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.

2010Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa. Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997); citing Myers v. DiDomenico, 441 Pa. Super. 341 , 657 A.2d 956, 957 (1995). (2) In a custody dispute, a trial court must determine what arrangement is in the best interest of the child, conducting a searching inquiry into all facts and circumstances having an impact on the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.

2008The “best interests of the child standard” is applied on a case-by-case basis and includes a consideration of all factors “which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” In re Slaughter, 738 A.2d 1013, 1015 , (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa. Super. 450, 454 , 625 A.2d 692, 693 (1993)).

2008The “best interests of the child standard” is applied on a case-by-case basis and includes a consideration of all factors “which legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” In re Slaughter, 738 A.2d 1013, 1015 , (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa. Super. 450, 454 , 625 A.2d 692, 693 (1993)).

2025See id. at 168–69. -7- J-S46008-24 J-S46009-24 It is beyond cavil that, in child custody cases, the paramount concern is for the best interests of the child, “based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well[- ]being.” R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2025See id. at 168–69. -7- J-S46008-24 J-S46009-24 It is beyond cavil that, in child custody cases, the paramount concern is for the best interests of the child, “based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral[,] and spiritual well[- ]being.” R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2023See also Altus-Baumhor v. Baumhor, 595 A.2d 1147 ( Pa. Super. 1991)(determinations in matters of custody and visitation of what is in the best interest of achild are made on a case-by-case basis and must be premised upon the consideration of all factors which 10 s:\ctjudges\admin\royer\family\appeals\Hennigan Kelly vHennigan Patrick No 2021- 10052- CU 12-16-22 Children's Fast Track Appeal legitimately have an effect upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well- being).

2020FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The law is clear that "the paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interest of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being and it can be made on a case-by-case basis." Staub v. Staub, 960 A.2d 848, 853 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2008See also Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super.2006) (“custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.”) ¶20 In Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa.Super. 321 , 548 A.2d 632 (1988), the best interests standard was applied on facts similar to those of the instant case.

2008See also Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super.2006) (“custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.”) ¶20 In Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa.Super. 321 , 548 A.2d 632 (1988), the best interests standard was applied on facts similar to those of the instant case.

2008See also Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super.2006) (“custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.”) ¶20 In Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa.Super. 321 , 548 A.2d 632 (1988), the best interests standard was applied on facts similar to those of the instant case.

2006Dranko v. Dranko, 824 A.2d 1215, 1219 (Pa.Super.2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). ¶ 6 Appellant first claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request to relocate with Kaytlyn.

2005See K.B. v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767, 776 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 13 “What the judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child’s best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party’s side.” McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101, 1107 (Pa.Super.2000), citing Ellerbe, 416 A.2d at 513-514 .

2005See K.B. v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767, 776 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 13 “What the judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child’s best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party’s side.” McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101, 1107 (Pa.Super.2000), citing Ellerbe, 416 A.2d at 513-514 .

2005See K.B. v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767, 776 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 13 “What the judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child’s best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party’s side.” McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101, 1107 (Pa.Super.2000), citing Ellerbe, 416 A.2d at 513-514 .

2003“This determination is to be made on a case by case basis.” Wheeler, 793 A.2d at 933 . ¶ 6 Moreover, because this matter involves an issue of relocation, the evidence must be reviewed in light of each of the factors enunciated in Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa.Super. 174 , 583 A.2d 434 (1990), which must be applied under the “umbrella of the ultimate objective of determining the best interests of the child.” Anderson v. McVay, 743 A.2d 472, 474 (Pa.Super.1999).

2001Kaneski v. Kaneski, 413 Pa.Super. 173 , 604 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1992) (quoting McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 202 , 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992)). 2 Further, as we have stated many times before, “[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, *839 moral and spiritual well-being.” Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997) (citation omitted). ¶ 7 In her first issue, Mother asserts the trial court erred in failing to interview or hear testimony

2001Kaneski v. Kaneski, 413 Pa.Super. 173 , 604 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1992) (quoting McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 202 , 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992)). 2 Further, as we have stated many times before, “[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, *839 moral and spiritual well-being.” Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997) (citation omitted). ¶ 7 In her first issue, Mother asserts the trial court erred in failing to interview or hear testimony

2001Kaneski v. Kaneski, 413 Pa.Super. 173 , 604 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1992) (quoting McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 202 , 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992)). 2 Further, as we have stated many times before, “[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, *839 moral and spiritual well-being.” Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997) (citation omitted). ¶ 7 In her first issue, Mother asserts the trial court erred in failing to interview or hear testimony

2001Kaneski v. Kaneski, 413 Pa.Super. 173 , 604 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1992) (quoting McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 202 , 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992)). 2 Further, as we have stated many times before, “[t]he paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, *839 moral and spiritual well-being.” Swope v. Swope, 455 Pa.Super. 587 , 689 A.2d 264, 265 (1997) (citation omitted). ¶ 7 In her first issue, Mother asserts the trial court erred in failing to interview or hear testimony