§ 5337. Relocation.
(a) Applicability.--This section applies to any proposed relocation, including relocation subject to 51
Pa.C.S. Ch. 46 (relating to uniform deployed parents custody and visitation).
(b) General rule.--No relocation shall occur unless:
(1) every individual who has custody rights to the child consents to the proposed relocation;
or
(2) the court approves the proposed relocation.
(c) Notice.--
(1) The party proposing the relocation shall notify every other individual who has custody
rights to the child.
(2) Notice, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall be given no later
than:
(i) the 60th day before the date of the proposed relocation; or
(ii) the tenth day after the date that the individual knows of the relocation, if:
(A) the individual did not know and could not reasonably have known of the relocation
in sufficient time to comply with the 60-day notice; and
(B) it is not reasonably possible to delay the date of relocation so as to comply with
the 60-day notice.
(3) Except as provided by section 5336 (relating to access to records and information),
the following information, if available, must be included with the notice of the proposed
relocation:
(i) The address of the intended new residence.
(ii) The mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new residence.
(iii) Names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including individuals who
intend to live in the new residence.
(iv) The home telephone number of the intended new residence, if available.
(v) The name of the new school district and school.
(vi) The date of the proposed relocation.
(vii) The reasons for the proposed relocation.
(viii) A proposal for a revised custody schedule.
(ix) Any other information which the party proposing the relocation deems appropriate.
(x) A counter-affidavit as provided under subsection (d)(1) which can be used to object
to the proposed relocation and the modification of a custody order.
(xi) A warning to the nonrelocating party that if the nonrelocating party does not file
with the court an objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days after receipt
of the notice, that party shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation.
(4) If any of the information set forth in paragraph (3) is not known when the notice
is sent but is later made known to the party proposing the relocation, then that party
shall promptly inform every individual who received notice under this subsection.
(d) Objection to proposed relocation.--
(1) A party entitled to receive notice may file with the court an objection to the proposed
relocation and seek a temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation. The
nonrelocating party shall have the opportunity to indicate whether he objects to relocation
or not and whether he objects to modification of the custody order or not. If the party objects to either
relocation or modification of the custody order, a hearing shall be held as provided
in subsection (g)(1). The objection shall be made by completing and returning to the
court a counter-affidavit, which shall be verified subject to penalties under 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities), in substantially the following
form:
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION
This proposal of relocation involves the following child/children:
|
Child's Name
|
Age
|
Currently residing at:
|
|
......................
|
.................
|
.......................
|
|
Child's Name
|
Age
|
Currently residing at:
|
|
......................
|
.................
|
.......................
|
|
Child's Name
|
Age
|
Currently residing at:
|
|
......................
|
.................
|
.......................
|
I have received a notice of proposed relocation and
1. .... I do not object to the relocation and I do not object to the modification of the custody
order consistent with the proposal for revised custody schedule as attached to the
notice.
2. .... I do not object to the relocation, but I do object to modification of the custody
order, and I request that a hearing be scheduled:
a. .... Prior to allowing (name of child/children) to relocate.
b. .... After the child/children relocate.
3. .... I do object to the relocation and I do object to the modification of the custody order,
and I further request that a hearing be held on both matters prior to the relocation
taking place.
................................................................
I understand that in addition to checking (2) or (3) above, I must also file this
notice with the court in writing and serve it on the other party by certified mail,
return receipt requested. If I fail to do so within 30 days of my receipt of the proposed
relocation notice, I shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation.
................................................................
I verify that the statements made in this counter-affidavit are true and correct.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities).
Date:
................................................................
................................................................
(2) An objection made under this subsection shall be filed with the court within 30 days
of receipt of the proposed relocation notice and served on the other party by certified
mail, return receipt requested.
(3) If notice of the proposed relocation has been properly given and no objection to the
proposed relocation has been filed in court, then it shall be presumed that the nonrelocating
party has consented to the proposed relocation.
(4) If a party who has been given proper notice does not file with the court an objection
to the relocation within 30 days after receipt of the notice but later petitions the
court for review of the custodial arrangements, the court shall not accept testimony
challenging the relocation.
(e) Confirmation of relocation.--If no objection to the proposed relocation is filed under subsection (d), the party
proposing the relocation shall file the following with the court prior to the relocation:
(1) an affidavit stating that the party provided notice to every individual entitled to
notice, the time to file an objection to the proposed relocation has passed and no
individual entitled to receive notice has filed an objection to the proposed relocation;
(2) Proof that proper notice was given in the form of a return receipt with the signature
of the addressee and the full notice that was sent to the addressee.
(3) a petition to confirm the relocation and modify any existing custody order; and
(4) a proposed order containing the information set forth in subsection (c)(3).
(f) Modification of custody order.--If a counter-affidavit regarding relocation is filed with the court which indicates
the nonrelocating party both has no objection to the proposed relocation and no objection
to the modification of the custody order consistent with the proposal for revised
custody schedule, the court may modify the existing custody order by approving the
proposal for revised custody schedule submitted under subsection (c)(3)(viii), and
shall specify the method by which its future modification can be made if desired by
either party. If a counter-affidavit regarding relocation is filed with the court
which indicates the nonrelocating party objects either to the proposed relocation
or to the modification of the custody order consistent with the proposal for revised
custody schedule, the court shall modify the existing custody order only after holding
a hearing to establish the terms and conditions of the order pursuant to the relocation
indicating the rights, if any, of the nonrelocating parties.
(g) Hearing.--
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (3), the court shall hold an expedited full hearing
on the proposed relocation after a timely objection has been filed and before the
relocation occurs.
(2) Except as set forth in paragraph (3), the court may, on its own motion, hold an expedited
full hearing on the proposed relocation before the relocation occurs.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), if the court finds that exigent circumstances
exist, the court may approve the relocation pending an expedited full hearing.
(4) If the court approves the proposed relocation, it shall:
(i) modify any existing custody order; or
(ii) establish the terms and conditions of a custody order.
(h) Relocation factors.--In determining whether to grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the
following factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the
safety of the child:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of the child's relationship
with the party proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating party, siblings and
other significant persons in the child's life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation
will have on the child's physical, educational and emotional development, taking into
consideration any special needs of the child.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating party and
the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial
circumstances of the parties.
(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart
the relationship of the child and the other party.
(6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking
the relocation, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational
opportunity.
(7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including,
but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.
(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation.
(9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household
and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party.
(10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.
(i) Burden of proof.--
(1) The party proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation
will serve the best interest of the child as shown under the factors set forth in
subsection (h).
(2) Each party has the burden of establishing the integrity of that party's motives in
either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation.
(j) Failure to provide reasonable notice.--The court may consider a failure to provide reasonable notice of a proposed relocation
as:
(1) a factor in making a determination regarding the relocation;
(2) a factor in determining whether custody rights should be modified;
(3) a basis for ordering the return of the child to the nonrelocating party if the relocation
has occurred without reasonable notice;
(4) sufficient cause to order the party proposing the relocation to pay reasonable expenses
and counsel fees incurred by the party objecting to the relocation; and
(5) a ground for contempt and the imposition of sanctions against the party proposing
the relocation.
(k) Mitigation.--Any consideration of a failure to provide reasonable notice under subsection (i) shall
be subject to mitigation if the court determines that such failure was caused in whole,
or in part, by abuse.
(l) Effect of relocation prior to hearing.--If a party relocates with the child prior to a full expedited hearing, the court shall
not confer any presumption in favor of the relocation.
(Oct. 27, 2025, P.L.131, No.40, eff. 30 days)
2025 Amendment. Act 40 amended subsec. (a).
Cross References. Section 5337 is referred to in section 5323 of this title; sections 4605, 4611 of
Title 51 (Military Affairs).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
167
cases (
51 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case:
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 6× “As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 3× “The trial court delineat *570 ed the reasons for its decision, and addressed the ten relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h), reproduced infra. It found that the only factor that militated in favor of relocation concerned the anticipated enhancement to Mother’s quality of…”
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2012).
· cites it 6× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(Z). In the instant case, the trial court stated in its opinion that it disregarded any evidence arising out of the period after Mother and the Children moved to Sweden in April of 2010, and that it determined it was bound to do so by its interpretation of…”
E.B. v. D.B., 209 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “It also prohibited the parties from relocating with Child without adhering to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. Id. at 20. Further, the court specified that the order "supersed[ed] all prior custody orders entered in this matter.”
S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Whether the trial court erred in finding that factor five of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h) and factor one of 23 Pa.”
J. & S.O. v. C.H., 206 A.3d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Whether by subsequent legislative enactment and application of the anti-relocation provisions contained within [ 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337 ] causes [ 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 ] to violate the fundamental rights of parents to make decision concerning their child's care, custody and control as…”
J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(k) ("Any consideration of a failure to provide reasonable notice [of relocation] .”
K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“' Both parties must follow the statutory requirements contained in 23 Pa. C.S. § 5337. Specifically, the'relocating party must notify every other individual who has custody rights to the children by certified mail, return receipt requested.”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 6× “As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
· cites it 11× “17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
· cites it 10× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
· cites it 9× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(Z): 1 case
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2012).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(Z). In the instant case, the trial court stated in its opinion that it disregarded any evidence arising out of the period after Mother and the Children moved to Sweden in April of 2010, and that it determined it was bound to do so by its interpretation of…”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(a): 3 cases
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
“17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(b): 6 cases
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., No. J.M. v. K.W. No. 76 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 31, 2017).
M.Y. v. B.S., No. 774 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2019).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(b)(1): 2 cases
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(b)(2): 1 case
K.W. v. K.W., No. 1292 WDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2020).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(b)(i): 1 case
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(c): 14 cases
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
“17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
S.M. v. R.J., No. S.M. v. R.J. No. 1802 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2017).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(c)(2): 2 cases
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(c)(3)(xi): 1 case
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(c)(l): 1 case
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(d): 10 cases
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., No. J.M. v. K.W. No. 76 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 31, 2017).
In Re: Order Amending Rules 1901.3, 1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, 1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 1915.7, 1915.15, 1915.17, 1915.18, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1, 1930.6, 1953, & 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, No. 674 Civil Procedural Rules Docket (Pa. Jan. 5, 2018).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(e): 2 cases
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(f): 2 cases
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2012).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(Z). In the instant case, the trial court stated in its opinion that it disregarded any evidence arising out of the period after Mother and the Children moved to Sweden in April of 2010, and that it determined it was bound to do so by its interpretation of…”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(g): 8 cases
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As it relates to the present appeal, the trial court entered several orders, including a March 25, 2014 order scheduling the custody conference, which specifically prohibited relocation without prior court approval pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. On April 25, 2014, Mother filed a…”
S.B. v. K.C., No. 688 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(b)(i)&(ii). The party seeking to relocate is required to send notice to every other party who has custody rights to the child, via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressee only or pursuant to Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(g)(1): 4 cases
A.F. v. J.F., No. 2500 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 2016).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(g)(3): 1 case
J.M. v. M.M., No. 1049 WDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2020).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(g)(4): 2 cases
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h): 102 cases
D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“The trial court delineat *570 ed the reasons for its decision, and addressed the ten relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h), reproduced infra. It found that the only factor that militated in favor of relocation concerned the anticipated enhancement to Mother’s quality of…”
S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“Whether the trial court erred in finding that factor five of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h) and factor one of 23 Pa.”
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2012).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(Z). In the instant case, the trial court stated in its opinion that it disregarded any evidence arising out of the period after Mother and the Children moved to Sweden in April of 2010, and that it determined it was bound to do so by its interpretation of…”
M.Y. v. B.S., No. 774 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2019).
L.M. v. R.S., No. 2072 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2016).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(1): 14 cases
S.H.W. v. S.E.W., No. S.H.W. v. S.E.W. No. 2256 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(10): 3 cases
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(2): 11 cases
D.K.D. v. A.L.C., 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“The trial court delineat *570 ed the reasons for its decision, and addressed the ten relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h), reproduced infra. It found that the only factor that militated in favor of relocation concerned the anticipated enhancement to Mother’s quality of…”
S.H.W. v. S.E.W., No. S.H.W. v. S.E.W. No. 2256 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017).
M.Y. v. B.S., No. 774 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2019).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(3): 12 cases
S.H.W. v. S.E.W., No. S.H.W. v. S.E.W. No. 2256 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017).
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(4): 5 cases
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(5): 4 cases
M.W. v. A.R., No. 22 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018).
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(6): 10 cases
S.H.W. v. S.E.W., No. S.H.W. v. S.E.W. No. 2256 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017).
M.W. v. A.R., No. 22 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018).
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(7): 4 cases
S.H.W. v. S.E.W., No. S.H.W. v. S.E.W. No. 2256 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(8): 5 cases
M.W. v. A.R., No. 22 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018).
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(9): 2 cases
D.A. v. A.A., No. 1571 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h). Moreover, the party proposing relocation has the burden to prove that relocation will serve the child’s best interest.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(h)(i)(1): 1 case
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(i): 19 cases
B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2012).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(Z). In the instant case, the trial court stated in its opinion that it disregarded any evidence arising out of the period after Mother and the Children moved to Sweden in April of 2010, and that it determined it was bound to do so by its interpretation of…”
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
“17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(i)(1): 21 cases
D.J. v. H.M., No. 1033 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2017).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(i)(2): 14 cases
J.G. v. J.G., No. J.G. v. J.G. No. 2743 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 22, 2017).
M.W. v. A.R., No. 22 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018).
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(j): 3 cases
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
“17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(k): 1 case
J.C. v. K.C., 179 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(k) ("Any consideration of a failure to provide reasonable notice [of relocation] .”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5337(l): 6 cases
L.J.L. v. E.N.C., No. L.J.L. v. E.N.C. No. 2960 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2017).
“17 and 23 Pa.C.S. §5337, which is considered a statutory factor against relocation, and a basis to return the child to Father, under 23 Pa.”
M.W. v. A.R., No. 22 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.