Opinion

Dilworth, A. v. Dilworth, J.

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Mar 6, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Author: Panella
On the bench: Panella
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 39.1%

observing that concise statement which is too vague or too verbose frustrates the ability of both the trial court and the appellate court to review the appeal

How later courts described this case

observing that concise statement which is too vague or too verbose frustrates the ability of both the trial court and the appellate court to review the appeal
holding that the failure to file a concise statement wherein it states errors complained of on appeal with the notice of appeal will result in a defective notice of appeal, to be disposed of on a case by case basis
stating that, when - 21 - J-S47013-25 making a decision on relocation that also involves a custody decision, “the trial court must consider all ten relocation factors and all sixteen custody factors” outlined in the Act.
“[O]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

J-S47013-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ANGELA M. DILWORTH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

JOHN H. DILWORTH :

Appellant : No. 2242 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2025

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division at No(s): CV-2023-006819

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 6, 2026

John H. Dilworth (“Father”) appeals from the final custody order entered

on July 31, 2025, in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, granting

the petition filed by Angela Dilworth (“Mother”) to relocate with the parties’

three children to Bergen County, New Jersey. The order further awarded

Mother primary physical custody during the school year and Father partial

physical custody, and it reversed the custody awards during the summer

months. Upon review, we affirm.

The record reveals that Mother initiated the child custody action against

Father in December of 2023, with respect to the parties’ eight and nine-year-

old sons, J.D. and C.D., and their four-year-old daughter, E.D. At that time,

pursuant to an agreed-upon order for exclusive possession, Father moved out

of the marital residence in Havertown, Delaware County, after eleven years of

J-S47013-25

marriage, and into his parents’ home in Drexel Hill, Delaware County, where

he remained at the time of the subject proceedings. See Trial Court Opinion,

9/22/25, at 2; see also N.T., 7/10/25, at 286.

The interim custody order in effect throughout the underlying

proceedings was issued on January 19, 2024, following a hearing before a

custody officer. The order awarded Mother primary physical custody, Father

partial physical custody, and the parties shared legal custody. Pursuant to

the interim order, Father exercised custody on alternating weekends and

every Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. See N.T., 7/10/25, at 317.

A brief discussion about the procedural and factual history of this

custody action is necessary. The parties’ relationship is acrimonious, and they

have engaged in protracted litigation leading up to the final custody order on

appeal. For instance, on January 2 and January 30, 2024, Mother filed

Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) petitions against Father, the first of which she

withdrew, and the second the court dismissed. The trial court found that, by

April of 2024, “many petitions were filed, mostly by Mother. These petitions

mostly requested special relief or for findings of contempt against Father.”

Trial Court Opinion, 9/22/25, at 3. There is no dispute that Mother’s petitions

were unsuccessful against Father. 1

____________________________________________

1 In addition to filing various petitions, Mother twice reported Father to

children and youth services after their separation, which were ultimately

deemed unfounded. See N.T., 7/10/25, at 288-293. Further, Father alleged

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2-

J-S47013-25

The subject order arises from Mother’s notice of proposed relocation,

filed on March 8, 2024, which omitted a proposed new address. Nevertheless,

Father timely filed a counter-affidavit objecting to the relocation. On March

26, 2024, Mother filed a petition for relocation, requesting to relocate with the

children to “northern New Jersey,” to which Father filed an answer on April 4,

2024, opposing the relocation. Petition, 3/26/24, at ¶ 6.

The Honorable William C. Mackrides presided over the first day of the

custody and relocation trial on July 16, 2024. Mother, who testified on direct

and cross examination, was the only witness to testify on this date. In

addition, Mother introduced thirty-one exhibits, which the court admitted into

evidence. Father introduced ten exhibits, which the court also admitted. The

custody trial did not conclude on that date.

Approximately two weeks later, Mother filed another PFA petition

against Father, which the trial court ultimately dismissed, along with an

emergency petition to relocate, which the court denied. In September of

2024, Judge Mackrides ordered the parties to obtain a custody evaluation from

Kevin Masturzo, LCSW. The parties complied, and Mr. Masturzo completed

his report on April 2, 2025.

The second and final day of the trial was held on July 10, 2025. Because

judicial reassignments in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas had

____________________________________________

that Mother reported him to the police seventeen times after their separation,

however, the police never arrested him. See id. at 311.

-3-

J-S47013-25

occurred in the interim, the Honorable Rachel Ezzell Berry presided over the

continuation of the custody trial. Mr. Masturzo, Mother, and Father testified.

Father also presented the testimony of Adam Molineux, a neighbor whose sons

are friends and baseball teammates with the parties’ sons. The court admitted

Mr. Masturzo’s custody report as Exhibit C-1; three exhibits on behalf of

Father; and one more exhibit on behalf of Mother. In addition, the court

interviewed C.D., J.D., and E.D. collectively in camera.

In its opinion that accompanied the final custody order, the trial court

set forth 391 factual findings which are supported by the testimonial and

documentary evidence. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at ¶¶ 1-391. We

now summarize the relevant evidence from the custody trial as follows.

Mother testified that she desired to relocate with the children to Bergen

County, New Jersey, which is approximately a two-hour drive from Delaware

County, because it is where she was raised, and her mother, sister, brother,

and lifelong friends reside in or near the county. See id. at ¶¶ 150-151; see

also N.T., 7/16/24, at 12. In addition, Mother explained that she has a unique

lease-to-buy opportunity for a house with a fair market value of $740,000 in

Waldwick, Bergen County (“Waldwick house”). See id. at ¶ 157. Specifically,

the owner of the house is a man whom she has known most of her life and

with whom she was in a “casual relationship.” Id. at ¶ 155. Mother testified

he would accept a purchase price of $200,000 for the house. See id. at ¶

157. Mother testified that the lease-to-purchase offer did not have an

-4-

J-S47013-25

expiration date. See N.T., 7/16/24, at 97. Mother described the Waldwick

house as 3,000 square feet and has “a large fenced-in yard” with a pool. Id.

at 74-75.

In contrast, the marital residence is 1600 square feet, and the parties

planned to sell it as part of the divorce proceedings. See N.T., 7/16/24, at

74. Mother alleged that the marital residence is not safe because of electrical

issues. Id. at 71-72. Mother testified that, in Delaware County, she would

be able to afford a house only in Upper Darby, which she described as mostly

“row homes, no yard, older, more run down, less space for the kids. . . .” Id.

at 85-86.

Mother explained that the owner of the Waldwick house “is aware of

[her] situation” and “is very willing to help” in this way. Id. at 118. She

stated that he “owns multiple properties. He is also a Marine who has helped

his fellow Marines [who have come] back from deployment. . . . He has given

them houses. . . .” Id. at 117.

Further, Mother testified that Waldwick is ranked “in the top three

towns” in New Jersey for public school excellence. N.T., 7/16/24, at 81. She

testified that Crescent Elementary, where the children would attend public

school, is ranked in the 8th percentile in New Jersey. See id.; see also Exhibit

P-28. Further, Mother testified that Crescent Elementary has “a 16 to 1

student-teacher ratio.” Id.

-5-

J-S47013-25

By July of 2024, the date of the first hearing, Mother had accepted a

high school English teaching position in the Paramus School District, located

in Bergen County, for the 2024-2025 school year, which included a $9000

salary increase from her teaching position in the Garnet Valley School District

in Delaware County. See N.T., 7/16/24, at 119. Mother testified that she

was hired “at a higher step” than what she held in the Garnet Valley School

District, and that her salary “would cap out sooner” in the Paramus School

District. Id. at 78. She stated, “I think it’s seven years sooner” than in the

Garnet Valley School District. Id.

By July of 2025, the last day of the trial, the marital residence had not

been sold by the parties insofar as equitable distribution in the divorce matter

was still pending.2 Mother testified that the children had remained in their

same parochial elementary school in Havertown during the last school year,

and she had commuted daily to and from the marital residence to the Paramus

School District for work. See N.T., 7/10/25, at 259. Besides teaching English,

Mother was then enrolled in a post-graduate program to become a principal

or an administrator in the Paramus School District, which would increase her

salary. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at ¶¶ 169-170. Mother testified,

“They want me to be an administrator in that district.” N.T., 7/10/25, at 186.

____________________________________________

2 The record does not reveal whether the parties’ divorce was bifurcated or

whether a decree of divorce had been entered by the time of the custody trial.

-6-

J-S47013-25

Father testified that Mother always took the children to Bergen County

during her custodial weekends and when their elementary school was not in

session during the week. See id. at 352. To this point, Father testified that

Mother did not permit the children to attend birthday parties or participate in

extracurricular sports in Delaware County that occurred during her primary

physical custody time. See id. at 332-334. Mother agreed that, since the

school year came to an end, she spends most of her time in New Jersey, where

the children participate in a sports camp. See id. at 254.

Father testified that, throughout the underlying proceedings, Mother

never agreed to his requests for additional time with the children outside the

parameters of the interim custody order. See N.T., 7/10/25, at 321-329. For

example, Father testified that J.D. played baseball in the past year on

Wednesday evenings in Havertown, during Father’s custody time which was

from 3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. One evening J.D. had a baseball game from

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. Father explained, “you can’t start a new inning after

7:45. So I asked [Mother] . . . can [J.D.] just finish this game? It’ll be 15

extra minutes? No. So we ended up having to leave that game early.” Id.

at 321.

Further, Father testified that Mother has “purposely limited” his “access”

to the children. Id. at 353. However, Father does not claim that Mother failed

to abide by the interim order; rather, he claims that Mother has created “fear

and anxiety in my children . . . about even playing baseball or playing sports

-7-

J-S47013-25

or doing things they’ve always loved to do.” Id. In essence, Father testified

he is opposed to the children relocating with Mother due to “the amount of

time I actually get to see my kids or be part of their lives. Like I’ll never coach

them again. I won’t get to see them every morning. . . .” Id. at 361. Father

requested equally shared physical custody if Mother remains in Pennsylvania,

and primary physical custody if she relocates to New Jersey. See id. at 378.

During their collective in camera interview, J.D., the middle child who

was nine years old, provided nearly all of the answers to the trial court’s

inquiries as compared to eleven-year-old C.D. and six-year-old E.D. J.D.

testified that Father has called Mother an “Italian B-*-*-*-H,” and that “[h]e

says stuff like she ruined the family. . . .” Id. at 13, 29. In addition, J.D.

testified, “one time my dad . . . was so angry that he like picked me up and

threw me on the bed. Like he threw me so hard.”3 Id. J.D. testified, “I just

____________________________________________

3 Father testified that this incident occurred during the parties’ marriage, and

it was the subject of one of Mother’s reports to children and youth services

after their separation. See N.T., 7/10/25, at 288. Father described the

incident as follows:

[C.D.] and [J.D.] were fighting downstairs in our living room, like

brothers do. It got a little heated . . . so I separated the two.

[C.D] went and sat down. [J.D.] kept trying to fight. So I picked

[J.D] up underneath . . . my arm, brought him upstairs, brought

him into his room. He’s clinging onto me, trying to hit me, and I

just chucked him down on his bed . . . lightly kind of toss[ed] him

down on his bed. He hit the bed, he rolled over his knee, hit the

wall, and there was an impression on the wall. There’s no hole in

the wall. . . .

Id. at 289.

-8-

J-S47013-25

feel like a little more safe with my mom.” Id. at 19. J.D. spoke on behalf of

his siblings by stating, “I think we’re willing to go to New Jersey,” and he

expressed wishing to keep the partial physical custody schedule the same with

Father. Id. at 26, 28. The court concluded that the children’s testimony was

of limited probative value because they “appeared to have been coached by”

Mother. Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at ¶ 16.

Finally, with respect to the custody evaluation, Mr. Masturzo submitted

a thorough report based upon his individual interviews of the parties via video,

text messages, telephone, and email. See Exhibit C-1 at 2. Mr. Masturzo

also individually and privately interviewed the children by video on two

occasions, first when they were present with Father in their paternal

grandparents’ home in Drexel Hill and then again when the children were

present in the Waldwick house. See id. On both occasions, the children

expressed their desire to maintain the current custody schedule between their

parents and to relocate with Mother to New Jersey. See id. at 13-14, 15-17.

The oldest child, C.D., told Mr. Masturzo that he worried whether Father “will

not like him if he moves to New Jersey” with Mother. Id. at 13. Moreover,

C.D. told Mr. Masturzo during his interview at the Waldwick house that, after

Mr. Masturzo spoke to him and his siblings the prior week at his paternal

grandparents’ home, “Dad said mom cheated on him and we will break his

heart if we move. Grandpop said look at the seventh commandment for

-9-

J-S47013-25

adultery. I can’t believe you guys would turn your back on me. . . .” Id.

(punctuation added).

Further, Mr. Masturzo participated in a “virtual tour” of the Waldwick

house, and he virtually “observed” the marital residence and the home of

Father’s parents in Drexel Hill. See id. Mr. Masturzo found, in contrast to the

Waldwick house, that the marital residence is in “fair/poor condition.” Exhibit

C-1 at 9. Specifically, he observed “[e]xposed electrical work and the

condition of the front playroom, mudroom, and basement appear to be safety

issues.” Id.

Mr. Masturzo testified that “it’s a good opportunity” for Mother to

purchase the Waldwick house and emphasized that Mother consistently

explained that the owner of the house is “a successful contractor [who] giv[es]

back to his community through helping people.” Id. at 117.

Ultimately, Mr. Masturzo recommended, inter alia, that the court

continue the legal and physical custody awards exercised throughout the

parties’ separation with a schedule like that set forth in the interim order, and

that the children be permitted to relocate to New Jersey. See Exhibit C-1 at

35. Mr. Masturzo’s recommendation was based, in part, on his belief that the

relocation will not “significantly impact” Father’s relationship with the children.

Id. at 34.

By order dated July 30, 2025, and entered on July 31, 2025, which was

accompanied by a thorough opinion, the trial court awarded the parties shared

- 10 -

J-S47013-25

legal custody; Mother primary physical custody during the school year; and

permitted the children to relocate with Mother to the Waldwick house in

Bergen County, New Jersey. The order awarded Father partial physical

custody every two out of three weekends per month from Friday after school

until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The order reversed the awards during the summer

by placing primary physical custody in Father and partial physical custody in

Mother with a schedule that was the same for that of the school year. The

order also designated a holiday and vacation schedule. Finally, the order

included additional provisions for the right of first refusal and for the parties

to exercise flexibility with their custody time for the purpose of

accommodating the other parent and/or allowing the children to attend

birthday parties near the other parent’s home.

On August 26, 2025, Father timely filed a notice of appeal. Father filed

a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) on September 9, 2025, wherein he asserted thirty-six errors by the

court.4 The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion on September 22, 2025,

____________________________________________

4 By failing to concurrently file the concise statement with the notice of appeal,

Father violated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). However, Mother does not claim that

she was prejudiced as a result of Father’s procedural misstep. In addition,

Father’s error did not impede the trial court’s ability to issue a thorough

opinion in response. Therefore, we conclude that his error was harmless, and

we will not dismiss his appeal. See In Re K.T.E.L, 983 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa.

Super. 2009) (holding that the failure to file a concise statement wherein it

states errors complained of on appeal with the notice of appeal will result in a

defective notice of appeal, to be disposed of on a case by case basis).

- 11 -

J-S47013-25

wherein it states that the errors asserted were “not concise and quite

redundant.”5 Trial Court Opinion, 9/22/25, at 5, n.1. Nonetheless, the court

responded to each of Father’s assertions. Id. at 8-37.

Father has raised each of the thirty-six issues in his statement of

questions involved in his brief. Our Supreme Court has declared that raising

a staggering number of issues is not effective appellate advocacy and is

“borderline abuse of the legal system.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864

A.2d 460, 480 n.28 (Pa. 2004). The Court explained that “multiplying

assignments of error will dilute and weaken a good case and will not save a

bad one.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jackson, “Advocacy Before the

United States Supreme Court,” 25 Temple L. Q. 115, 119 (1951)).

Father presents the following issues in this appeal:

____________________________________________

5 Rule 1925(b) provides “The Statement should not be redundant or provide

lengthy explanations as to any error. Where non-redundant, non-frivolous

issues are set forth in an appropriately concise manner, the number of errors

raised will not alone be grounds for finding waiver.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv).

However, this Court has previously stated that “[n]oncompliance with Rule

1925(b) may result in waiver.” Zabrosky v. Smithbower-Zabrosky, 273

A.3d 1108, 1113 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907

A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (observing that concise statement which is too vague

or too verbose frustrates the ability of both the trial court and the appellate

court to review the appeal)).

We disapprove of Father’s lengthy concise statement of errors complained

of on appeal. However, to the extent the trial court requests that this Court

waive Father’s issues on appeal for not being raised in accordance with Rule

1925(b), we conclude it is inappropriate in this case where the trial court

provided a thorough review of Father’s claims.

- 12 -

J-S47013-25

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion by failing to adequately weigh the custody factors as

set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1) through (16)?

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in its application of the custody factors as set forth in

23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1) through (16)?

3. With regard to custody factors was the trial court’s decision

against the weight of the evidence in contradiction to the bulk of

credible evidence?

4. With regard to custody factors was the evidence presented

by Mother insufficient to support the trial court’s decision

confirming primary physical custody in Mother?

5. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(3) slightly favors

[M]other due to the current custody arrangements?

6. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(4) favors [M]other

due to the current custody arrangements?

7. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(10) slightly favors

[M]other due to the current custody arrangements?

8. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(12) slightly favors

[M]other due to the current custody arrangements?

9. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in giving Mother undue consideration and/or credit for

the previous four factors as Mother manipulated and/or took

unfair advantage of the judicial process in improperly obtaining

primary physical custody of the minor children and then being able

to retain primary physical custody of the minor children for

approximately two (2) years as the parties awaited the conclusion

of the custody trial?

10. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(14) slightly favors

[M]other because Father waited ninety-seven (97) days before

- 13 -

J-S47013-25

undergoing a court ordered drug and alcohol test without any

other credible evidence that Father abuses alcohol or drugs, or

that Father has any kind of history of alcohol or drug abuse?

11. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody after

making a determination that Mother was not credible and that

Father was credible?

12. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody after

making a determination that Mother had improperly coached the

minor children?

13. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody after

making a determination that Mother has a history of thwarting

Father’s relationship with the Children?

14. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody after

making a determination that Mother alienated the minor children

against Father and their community?

15. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody after

making a determination that Mother refuses to cooperate and co-

parent with Father even when it is more convenient and in the

best interest of the children to do so, while also making a

determination that Father is more likely to encourage and permit

contact between the children and Mother?

16. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion by failing to adequately weigh the relocation factors set

forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(1) through (h)(10)?

17. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in its application of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(1) through

(h)(10)?

18. With regard to relocation factors was the trial court’s

decision against the weight of evidence in contradiction to the bulk

of credible evidence?

- 14 -

J-S47013-25

19. With regard to the relocation factors was the evidence

presented by Mother insufficient to support the trial court’s

decision granting relocation for Mother?

20. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(2) and (h)(6) and

(h)(7) favors Mother for the following reasons: (a) that one of the

children has a learning disability; (b) the condition of the marital

home versus the condition of the property located in New Jersey;

($9,000.00) more in New Jersey and has the ability to become an

administrator; (d) Mother has extended family in New Jersey; and

(e) the quality of education offered in Bergen County?

21. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation where Mother could not

produce any credible evidence that one of the children has a

learning disability or that New Jersey offers a better quality of

education than Pennsylvania?

22. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation where the trial court

determined that Mother actually caused the condition of the

marital home and then lied about the circumstances in obtaining

her new residence in New Jersey?

23. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation where Mother could not

produce any credible evidence that her new employment provides

a significant increase in salary, medical benefits, and/or job

security?

24. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation based on Mother’s

extended family living in New Jersey despite the fact that Mother

has lived a majority of her life in Pennsylvania?

25. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in finding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(3) favors Mother

where the only rationale is that Mother has a unique opportunity

to purchase the proposed relocation residence even though the

trial court found that Mother misrepresented and/or lied

concerning the circumstances involving the opportunity to make

this purchase?

- 15 -

J-S47013-25

26. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion by failing to adequately weigh the relocation factors set

forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(4) where the trial court specifically

found coaching and alienation?

27. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion by failing to adequately weigh the relocation factors set

forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337(h)(6)?

28. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation after making a

determination that Mother was not credible and that Father was

credible?

29. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation after making a

determination that Mother improperly coached the minor children?

30. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation after making a

determination that Mother has a history of thwarting Father’s

relationship with the children?

31. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation after making a

determination that Mother alienated the minor children against

Father and their community?

32. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation after making a

determination that Mother refuses to cooperate and co-parent

with Father even when it is more convenient and in the best

interest of the children to do so, while also making a determination

that Father is more likely to encourage and permit contact

between the children and Mother?

33. Given Mother’s history and evidence in this case, did the

trial court abuse its discretion and/or make an error of law in

properly considering Mother’s history of failing to act in good faith

and attempting to limit Father’s custodial time with the children?

34. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody against

- 16 -

J-S47013-25

the weight of evidence, the trial court’s credibility determinations,

and the trial court’s determination of the custody factors?

35. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother relocation against the weight of the

evidence, the trial court’s credibility determinations, and the trial

court’s determination of the relocation factors?

36. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse of

discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody and

relocation in direct contradiction to the best interest of the minor

children?

Father’s Brief at 7–18.

We review Father’s issues according to the following scope and standard

of review:

[T]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or

inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact,

nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no

competent evidence to support it. . . . However, this broad

scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the

duty or the privilege of making its own independent

determination. . . . Thus, an appellate court is empowered

to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible

factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may

not interfere with those conclusions unless they are

unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual findings;

and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion.

R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(quoting Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Super.

2001)). Moreover,

The parties cannot dictate the amount of weight the trial

court places on evidence. Rather, the paramount concern

of the trial court is the best interest of the child. Appellate

interference is unwarranted if the trial court’s consideration

of the best interest of the child was careful and thorough,

and we are unable to find any abuse of discretion.

- 17 -

J-S47013-25

R.M.G., Jr., supra at 1237 (internal citations omitted). The test

is whether the evidence of record supports the trial court’s

conclusions. Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa. Super.

2006).

A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014).

We have explained, “It is not this Court’s function to determine whether

the trial court reached the ‘right’ decision; rather, we must consider whether,

‘based on the evidence presented, [giving] due deference to the trial court’s

weight and credibility determinations,’ the trial court erred or abused its

discretion. . . .” King v. King, 889 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005) (quoting

Hanson v. Hanson, 878 A.2d 127, 129 (Pa. Super. 2005)). This Court has

recognized that “the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses

in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court

by a printed record.” Ketterer, 902 A.2d at 540 (quoting Jackson v. Beck,

858 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

With respect to custody cases, the primary concern is the best interests

of the child. “The best-interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis,

considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child’s physical,

intellectual, moral, and spiritual wellbeing.” Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509,

512 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

Child custody actions are governed by the Child Custody Act (“Act”), 23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340. As the party proposing relocation, Mother had the

burden of proving that relocation will serve the children’s best interests as set

forth under Section 5337(h), which provides as follows.

- 18 -

J-S47013-25

(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.

- 19 -

J-S47013-25

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h).

The trial court in this case was also required to consider the custody

factors set forth in the Act, as follows.

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody.

(a) Factors. – In ordering any form of custody, the court shall

determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant

factors, giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors

specified under paragraphs (1), (2), (2.1) and (2.2) which affect

the safety of the child, including the following:

(1) Which party is more likely to ensure the safety of the child.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or

member of the party’s household, which may include past or

current protection from abuse or sexual violence protection

orders where there has been a finding of abuse.

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a) (relating

to consideration of child abuse and involvement with

protective services).

(2.2) Violent or assaultive behavior committed by a party.

(2.3) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit

frequent and continuing contact between the child and another

party if contact is consistent with the safety needs of the child.

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of

the child.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s

education, family life and community life, except if changes

are necessary to protect the safety of the child or a party.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

- 20 -

J-S47013-25

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the

child’s developmental stage, maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a party to turn the child against the other

party, except in cases of abuse where

reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect

the safety of the child. A party’s reasonable concerns for

the safety of the child and the party’s reasonable efforts to

protect the child shall not be considered attempts to turn the

child against the other party. A child’s deficient or negative

relationship with a party shall not be presumed to be caused

by the other party.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable,

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate

for the child's emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical,

emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of

the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to

make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one

another. A party’s effort to protect a child or self from abuse

by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability

to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member

of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member

of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) (effective Aug. 13, 2024 to Aug. 28, 2025); see also

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

- 21 -

J-S47013-25

making a decision on relocation that also involves a custody decision, “the trial

court must consider all ten relocation factors and all sixteen custody factors”

outlined in the Act.).

This Court has explained that all of the factors listed in Section 5337(h)

and Section 5328(a) are required to be considered by the trial court when

entering a custody order. A.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).

Instantly, in its opinion accompanying the subject order, the trial court

found that Section 5337(h)(2), (3), (4), (6), (7) and (8) favored Mother, 6 and

(5) favored Father. The court found that (h)(1) and (9) favored neither party

and (10) was inapplicable. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at 45-50.

With respect to the custody factors, the court found that Section

5328(a)(3), (4), (10), (12), and (14) favored Mother, 7 and (2.3), (8), (11),

and (13) favored Father.8 The court found (a)(15) and (16) inapplicable, and

____________________________________________

6 With respect to Section 5337(h)(3), (4), (6), and (8), the court specifically

found that they “slightly” favored Mother.

7 Other than Section 5328(a)(4), the court found that these custody factors

“slightly” favored Mother.

8 The court found Section (a)(2.3) and (11) “slightly” favored Father.

- 22 -

J-S47013-25

that the remaining factors favored neither party. Id. at 37-45. We emphasize

the court’s conclusions particularly with respect to Section 5328(a)(4), the

need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and

community life, as follows.

Mother testified that she currently spends most of her time in New

Jersey, including when the children are in her custody.

Consequently, the children similarly spend most of their

time in New Jersey and have established social relations

there, such as their participation in summer camp.

However, . . . the children were born and raised in Pennsylvania

where they have lived for most of their lives. As a result, they

still possess considerable educational, family, and community

connections in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, given the time

elapsed since the establishment of the current custody

arrangement [as set forth in the interim order], a

significant modification would likely constitute a disruption

to the children’s stability and continuity. . . .

Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at 40 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

The court further reasoned, as follows.

Even though this is a close call, the court finds that Mother has

met her burden. The best interest factors impacting the safety of

the children do not make a significant difference in this matter.

. . . And because both parents clearly love the children very much,

the factors involving providing a loving relationship are not

particularly instructive. Instead, the court puts particular

emphasis on its findings that the relocation will enhance the

children’s educational development and thereby their quality of

life. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(2) & (7). The relocating school

district is high quality and there are many opportunities for the

children there. The concededly odd circumstances of the single

family home available to Mother in the relocating area is unique

and not transferable, and the court credits Mother’s testimony and

the inferences that she would not otherwise be able to afford real

estate at the price point of the relocating home. It is a nice

neighborhood in a nice community, and while it is a distance from

Father [and his] extended family, it is close to Mother’s extended

family.

- 23 -

J-S47013-25

Further factors weigh in favor of granting the relocation. Because

Mother is employed in the relocation area in a job that pays more

than her previous job, it is fair to say that the relocation will

enhance her quality of life from a financial opportunity standpoint

and, by extension, the children. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(6)

& (7). The court also credits her testimony that there are some

unique educational or professional opportunities available in the

relocation area that will provide her with unique professional and

potential financial opportunities. Indeed, she has already

acquired a better paying job in the relocating area . . . and is

pursuing professional advancement.

The court recognizes that [since] the parties separated, Father

[has] wanted shared physical custody of the children. . . . This

court acknowledges that the relocation statute states that courts

“shall hold an expedited hearing” on any proposed relocation. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(g). This court further acknowledges that at

some point, this matter was reassigned following section

reassignments and that judicial resources are limited, and that

both parties hoped for resolution of this matter as soon as

possible.

But the reality is that since the parties’ separation, for

approximately the last eighteen months, Mother has had primary

custody of the children. . . . The children did not express any

upset or reservations about their daily life or the current

arrangement. Although the court believes the children have been

“coached” as well as improperly influenced by Mother . . . it does

not mean that the children have completely lost their ability to

express any preference at all. . . . The children are close with

Mother and insisted they want to move to New Jersey. See 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(7); see id. at § 5337(h)(4). Even despite

the coaching, the court believes the children’s preference is to

relocate, even if their preferences are exaggerated due to

improper coaching by Mother. The children are familiar with the

area as Mother’s extended family has lived there . . . [and] Mother

would bring them . . . for visits. It therefore makes sense that

they would have a positive impression of the relocating area.

The court also emphasizes its findings that it is feasible to

preserve the relationship between the non-relocating party and

the children through suitable custody arrangements. See 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(3). In so doing, the court does not minimize

- 24 -

J-S47013-25

that a relocating party is almost always, to some degree,

adversely affected by the granting of a relocation. But the court

notes that for approximately the past eighteen months, Father has

had partial physical custody. . . . The alternating weekend

custodial time can (at a minimum) be preserved as the proximity

of the parties’ residences is approximately a two-hour drive. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)(11); see id. at § 5337(h)(3). Further,

arrangements can be made to provide for Father having overall

more partial physical custody (on an annual basis) than he

currently has by increasing his weekend visitation during the

school year and increasing his overall visitation during the

summer months to primary physical custody. . . .

Because the children grew up here, the court acknowledges that

a relocation necessitates some discontinuity in the children’s

education and community life. That said, because of the children’s

ties to the relocating community as well as the ability to maintain

ties to the current area during time with Father, this factor is not

controlling.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/25, at 51-54 (cleaned up; some citations omitted).

Turning to the merits of this appeal, the crux of Father’s arguments with

respect to the custody factors is that the court primarily based its decision on

Section 5328(a)(3), the parental duties performed by each party, which it

found in Mother’s favor since she had exercised primary physical custody

under the interim order for the eighteen months leading up to the conclusion

of the trial. See Father’s Brief at 30-37. By doing so, Father argues the court

“disregard[ed] the historical reality that both parents have played equal roles

in raising and caring for the children.” Father’s Brief at 22. In addition, Father

argues the subject order is unreasonable in light of the court determining that

Section 5328(a)(2.3), (8), and (13) weighed in his favor due to finding that

- 25 -

J-S47013-25

Mother “coached” the children and had engaged in alienating conduct in an

effort to induce their preference for relocation. See Father’s Brief at 38-41.

With respect to the relocation factors, Father argues that the court

abused its discretion in weighing Section 5337(h)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) in

Mother’s favor. See Father’s Brief at 46-64. Father’s arguments amount to

challenging the court’s determinations regarding credibility and weight of the

evidence. See A.V., 87 A.3d at 820 (“[O]n issues of credibility and weight of

the evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial [court] who has had the

opportunity to observe the proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.”).

Concerning (h)(3), the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the

nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements,

Father argues that, like the custody factors, the court’s conclusion was

unreasonable in light of its findings that Mother had engaged in alienating

behavior. See id. at 64-70.

Upon review of the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and both opinions of the Honorable Rachel Ezzell Berry, we conclude

that Father is not entitled to relief for the reasons expressed in Judge Berry’s

July 31, 2025 opinion that accompanied the subject order, and her September

22, 2025 Rule 1925(a) opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge

Berry’s able opinions and adopt them as our own. In any future filing with

this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a

copy of Judge Berry’s July 31, 2025 and September 22, 2025 opinions.

- 26 -

J-S47013-25

We conclude this decision with again stating that the primary concern in

a custody case is the best interests of the children. As we have expressed

before, a minimal degree of cooperation between parents is essential to proper

parenting in cases where the mother and father no longer live together. This

minimal degree of cooperation does not translate into a requirement that the

parents have an amicable relationship. There is no question that the record in

this case indicates that both Mother and Father love and properly care for their

children. Equally clear is that Mother and Father regrettably do not have an

amicable relationship. “Although such a positive relationship is preferable, a

successful . . . custody arrangement requires only that the parents be able to

isolate their personal conflicts from their roles as parents and that the children

be spared whatever resentments and rancor the parents may harbor.” 9

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/6/2026

____________________________________________

9 This quote is from B.C.S. v. J.A.S., 944 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. Super. 2010),

where former Justice James Fitzgerald commented upon the cooperation

needed by parents in a custody case. Although the B.C.S. v. J.A.S. case

concerned a shared custody arrangement, we find Justice Fitzgerald’s astute

observations to be applicable here.

- 27 -

Circulated 02/18/2026 02:12 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

W THE " °F C0MM °N

CIVILA^^

ACTION LAW SYLVANIA

ANGELAM.

ANGELA M. DILWORTH,

M.DILWORTH,

Plaintiff

NO. CV-2023-006819

v,v.

v, NO. CV-2023-006819

IN CUSTODY

JOHNH.H.DILWORTH,

DILWORTH,

WORTH, IN CUSTODY

JOHN

Defendant

Lucas Clark, Esquire, Attorney for Mother-Plaintiff Angela M. Dilworth

Lucas CJark, Esquire, Attorney for Mother-Plaintiff Angela M. Dilworth

Peter Manaras, Esquire, Attorney for Father-Defendant John H.

H. Dilworth

Peter Manaras, Esquire, Attorney for Father-Defendant John H. Dilworth

FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF CUSTODY ORDER DATED 7/30/2025

FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPP ORT OF CUSTODY ORDER DATED 7/30/202S

Berry, J. J.

Berry, Filed:

Filed:

AND NOW, this July 30, 2025, following a two-day relocation and custody trial held

on July 16, 2024 and July 21, 2025, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact

on July 16, 2024 and July 21, 2025, the Court hereby makes the following findings offset

and conclusions of law in accordance with 23 Pa. C.S. $$ 5328:

and conclusions of law in accordance with 23 Pa. C.S. § 5328'

1. C.D. (DOB 3/@2014), J.D.

This action involves the parties' three children, C.D. J.D.

1. 4), J.D.

This action involves the parties’ three children, C.D. (DOB 3/j^20 1

(Do» 9g/2019) and ED. (poB

(DoB 162019) «collectively,

«collectively. me "Chila@rer")

"chilarer").

(DOB 9/^2015) and E.D. (DOB 1/^^2019) (collectively, the “Children”).

2. On or around December 14, 2023, Plaintiff Angela Dilworth ("Mother") filed a

2. On or around December 14, 2023, Plaintiff Angela Dilworth (“Mother”) filed a

Complaint for Custody (docket no. 9), which Defendant John H. Dilworth ("Father") answered

Complaint for Custody (docket no. 9), which Defendant John H. Dilworth (“Father”) answered

on or around December 18, 2023 (docket nos. 12 & 13).

3. When the parties resided together, and at the time of Mother's filing the

3. When the parties resided together, and at the time of Mother’s filing the

Complaint for Custody, they resided in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

4. This matter has a highly litigious history and involves multiple petitions for

special

special relief,

relief, contempt,

contempt, and and the like.

the like.

5. On or

or around

On or

On around March

March 8,

around March 8, 2024, Mother

Mother filed

2024, Mother

8, 2024, filed

filed aaa Notice

Notice of

Notice of Proposed

of Proposed Relocation

Relocation

Proposed Relocation

(docket

(docket no.

(docket no. 41),

no. 41), which

41), which Father

which Father opposes.

Father opposes.

opposes.

6. This matter

matter was

This matter

This was originally assigned

originally assigned

was originally to the

the Honorable

to the

assigned to Honorable William

Honorable William C.

William C. Mackrides

C. Mackrides and,

and,

Mackrides and,

following

following section was

reassignments, was

section reassignments,

following section reassignments, later

was later assigned

later assigned to

assigned to the

to the Honorable

the Honorable Rachel

Honorable Rachel Ezzell

Rachel Ezzell Berry.

Ezzell Berry.

Berry.

7. Judge

Judge Mackrides ordered aaa custody

Mackrides ordered

Judge Mackrides ordered custody evaluation as well

evaluation as

custody evaluation as well as

well as psychological

as psychological evaluation

evaluation

psychological evaluation

of the

ofthe parties.

the parties.

parties.

8.8.

8. Although

Although this trial

this trial

Although this was

was held

trial was held before

held before two

before two different

two different judges

differentjudges following

judges following section

section

following section

reassignments, Judge

reassignments, Berry

Judge Berry gave the parties

theparties

gave the

Berrygave the

parties the opportunitytoto

opportunity

the opportunity object

to object to

objectto her

to her and

handlingand

herhandling and

resolving

resolving the case,

resolvingthe case, and

and neither

neitherparty

party objected.

9.9.

9. The

The Court interviewed

Courtinterviewed

The Court the

interviewedthe Children

Childreninin

theChildren the

inthe robing

therobing room

roomon

robingroom on the

onthe record.

record.

therecord.

10.

10. Although

Althoughthe

Although the Court usually

usuallyinterviews

Courtusually

theCourt interviews the

interviewsthe Children

Childrenatat

theChildren the

atthe end

theend of

endof proceedings

ofproceedings

because

becauseitit

because was

itwas that

representedthat

wasrepresented the

thatthe Children

theChildren were highly

werehighly

Childrenwere stressed,

stressed,the

highlystressed, the Court

theCourt interviewed

Courtinterviewed the

the

interviewedthe

Children

Children first.

Childrenfirst.

first.

11.

11. The Children appeared tenseand

appearedtense

Childrenappeared

TheChildren

The tense and nervous

nervousatat

andnervous first,

atfirst, and

first,and the

andthe Court

theCourt spend

Courtspend

spend

approximately an

approximatelyan hour

anhour speaking

hourspeaking with

speakingwith the

withthe Children.

theChildren.

Children.

12.

12. thethree

Twoofofthe

Two childrencried

threechildren differentintervals

criedatatdifferent intervalswhile speaking

speakingininthe

whilespeaking back.

theback.

13.

13. The

The Children were

werecompetent

Childrenwere

TheChildren competentoto

competent testify

totestify and

andunderstood

testifyand understood the

understoodthe difference

thedifference between

between

differencebetween

telling the

tellingthe truth

thetruth and

truthand tellinga aalie.

telling

andtelling lie.

lie.

14.

14. The

The Children that

thathey

indicatedthat

Childrenindicated

TheChildren indicated they liked

likedtoto

theyliked togogototo the

tothe pool

thepool and watch

andwatch

pooland movies.

movies.

watchmovies.

15.

15. Two

Two Children testifiedthat

testified

Childrentestified

TwoChildren that

thathey were

theywere now

werenow disinterested

disinterestedinin

nowdisinterested sports

insports like baseball,

likebaseball,

sportslike but

but

baseball,but

one

one Child

Childinin

oneChild particular

inparticular commanded

commandeda aanoteworthy

particularcommanded noteworthy knowledgeofof

knowledge

noteworthyknowledge baseball

ofbaseball history,recalling

baseballhistory, recalling years

years

recallingyears

(includingones

(including onesbefore

beforehehewas

wasborn)

born) whenthe

born)when thePhiladelphia

Philadelphia Phillieswon

PhiladelphiaPhillies wonororlost

lostthe

theWorld

WorldSeries.

Series.

16.

16. The Children

The Children

The appeared

Children appeared to

to have

appeared to have been

have been coached

been coached by

coached by their Mother,

their

by their Mother, which

Mother, which limited

which limited the

limited the

the

probative

probative value

probative value of

value of their

of their testimony.

their testimony.

testimony.

17.

17. One Child

One Child

One testified

Child testified that

testified that Father

that Father had

Father had hurt

had hurt Mother

hurt Mother and

Mother and left bruises

and left

left bruises on

bruises on

on Mother’s

Mother's back

back

and told

and the

told the Court

the Court Mother

Court Mother had

Mother had to

had to stand

to stand rather

stand rather than

rather than sit

than sit

sit during work

during aaa work

during meeting because

work meeting

meeting the

ofthe

because of

because of the

bruises-information

bruises that seemingly

that seemingly

information that the Child

the Child

seemingly the would

Child would only

would only from

get from

only get

get Mother.

from Mother.

Mother.

18.

18. Two ofthe

Two of

Two of the Children

the Children describedresearch

Children described

described research they

researchthey had

had done

they had done the relative

on the

done on

on the numberof

relative number

relative number of

crimes

crimes committed inin

committed

crimes committed Delaware

inDelaware County,

Delaware County, Pennsylvania

County,Pennsylvania as

Pennsylvania as well asas

well

as well Bergen

asBergen County,New

Bergen County,

County, NewJersey,

New and

Jersey, and

describedtoto

described

described the

tothe Court

theCourt how

Courthow crime

howcrime dataisis

data

crimedata represented

isrepresented onaaamap.

representedon map.

map.

19.

19. One

OneChild

One Child testified

Childtestified that

testifiedthat Father

thatFather disparaged

Fatherdisparaged the

disparagedthe inNew

schoolsinin

theschools

schools NewJersey

New Jerseyasas

Jersey well as

wellasas

aswell

Mother's

Mother’s family.

Mother'sfamily.

family.

20.

20. One

OneChild

One Child testified

Childtestified that

testifiedthat the

thatthe teachers

theteachers inPennsylvania

teachersinin Pennsylvaniaare

Pennsylvania arenot

are not asgood

notasas goodasas

good in

onesinin

theones

asthe

the ones

New

New Jersey.

NewJersey,

Jersey.

2121.

21.

. One

One Child

OneChild testified

Childtestified that

testifiedthat Father

thatFather statedMother

Fatherstated

stated committedadultery

Mothercommitted

Mother committed orcheated

adulteryoror

adultery cheated and

cheatedand

and

blew

blew up

blewup the

upthe family.

thefamily.

family.

22.

22. One Child

OneChild

One Childvolunteered

volunteered nicotineproducts.

usesnicotine

Fatheruses

thatFather

volunteeredthat

that Father uses nicotine products.

products.

23.

23. Te

The Children

TheChildren statedthat

Childrenstated

stated that Fatherdrinks

thatFather

Father drinks beer,specifically

drinksbeer,

beer, IP As

specificallyIPAs

specifically IP As(India

(IndiaPale

(India Pale Ales,a aa

PaleAles,

Ales,

typeofof

type

type craft

ofcraft beer).

craftbeer).

beer).

24.

24. Kevin Masturzo(the

KevinMasturzo

Kevin Masturzo testified.

"Evaluator")testified.

"Evaluator")

(the“Evaluator”) testified.

25.

25. Exhibit

Exhibit C-1is is

ExhibitC-l

C-1 thecompleted

isthe

the custodyevaluation

completedcustody

completed custody evaluation Father.

andFather.

Motherand

ofMother

evaluationofof Mother and Father.

26.

26. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorconducted

conductedtwo

twovideo

videoconference

conferenceinterviews

interviewswith

withand

andtwo

twovirtual

virtual

home

home observations

homeobservations of

observationsofof Mother.See

Mother.

Mother. C-1atat2.2.

Ex.C-l

SeeEx.

Ex. C-1 2.

27.

27. Evaluatoreported

TheEvaluator

The

The Evaluator reported thatMother

reportedthat

that Motherhad

Mother had beendating

hadbeen

been dating someoneforfor

datingsomeone

someone fora aacouple

coupleofof

couple of

months.

months.See

SeeEx.

Ex.C-l

C-1at at5. 5.

3 3

28. The Evaluator reported Mother explained that Mother and Father were married

from July

from 7, 2012,

July 7 until August

2012, until 10, 2023.

August 10, See Ex.

2023. See C-1 at

Ex. C-l at 5.5.

29. The Evaluator reported that Mother stated that Father displayed aggressive

behavior throughout their relationship, including throwing and breaking a beer bottle and

punching himselfininthe

punchinghimself headatattimes.

the head Ex. C-l

See Ex.

times. See C-1 atat 5.5.

30. The Evaluator reported that Mother recounted that she was concerned and scared

that herrelationship

'locked-in'totoher

beTocked-in’

wouldbe

shewould

thatshe Fatheronce

withFather

relationshipwith andififthey

onceand child

hadaachild

theyhad

C-1 atat6.6.

Ex.C-l

SeeEx.

together. See

together.

31. The Evaluator reported that Mother said that following the birth of her first child,

she experienced postpartum depression and Father subsequently alienated her by denying her

visitstotoher

visits familyororfriends

herfamily friendsininNew

NewJersey. SeeEx.

Jersey. See C-1atat6.6.

Ex.C-l

32. The Evaluator reported that Mother stated her marriage began to deteriorate

followingthe

following child.See

secondchild.

hersecond

birthofofher

thebirth SeeEx. C-1atat6.6.

Ex.C-l

33. The Evaluator reported that Mother recounted that Father would frequently drive

33. The Evaluator eported that Mother ecounted that Father would frequently drive

under wasemotionally

andwas

influenceand

theinfluence

underthe abusivethroughout

emotionallyabusive therelationship.

throughoutthe SeeEx.

relationship.See Ex.C-l

C-1atat6. 6.

34. The Evaluator reported that Mother recalled Father became physically abusive

towardsher

towards 2020.See

herin in2020. SeeEx. C-1at at6. 6.

Ex.C-l

35.

35 .

The Evaluator reported that Mother stated Father would call Mother names such

"Italian

anan“Italian

as as c--t,"

c-t,” prevent

prevent herher from

from leaving

leaving

leaving thethe home,

home, throw

throw thingsat at

things her,

her, andand punched

punched a hole

a hole

into

into aa wall

wall

a wall adjacent to to

adjacent herher

to her head. See

head.See

head. Ex.Ex.

See C-1

C-1at at

Ex.C-l 6.

6. 6.

36.

36. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported that

that Mother

Mother recounted how she

recounted how she experienced aa miscarriage

miscarriage

36. The Evaluator reported that Mother recounted how she experienced a miscarriage

prior to to

prior thethe

unplanned ofof

birth

unplanned their

their third

third child.SeeSee

child. C-lC-1

Ex.Ex. 6. 6.

at at

4 4

37.

37. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported that Mother

reported that Mother recounted

recounted her

her and

and Father’s

Father's participation

participation inin

couples' therapy

couples’ therapy for

for several

several sessions

sessions and

and that

that their

their counselor

counselor was

was aware

aware that

that Father

Father voiced

voiced

suicidal ideations.

suicidal See Ex.

ideations. See Ex. C-l

C-1 atat 6.6.

38.

38. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported

reported that

that Mother

Mother recalled

recalled attending four couples

attending four couples counseling

counseling

sessions after

sessions aftershe

she filed

filed for

for divorce

divorce and

andthat

thatthe

the sessions

sessions were

were largely

largely unproductive. See Ex.

unproductive. See Ex.C-1

C-l

atat6.6.

39.

39. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reportedthat

thatMother

Motherstated

statedthe

thefinal

finalstraw

strawwas

waswhen

whenFather

Father

allegedly

allegedlythrew

allegedly threwone

oneof

ofthe

theChildren

Childreninto

intoaawall,

wall,resulting

resultingininaahole

holeininthe

thewall. SeeEx.

wall. See C-1atat6.6.

Ex.C-l 6.

40.

40. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thathe

reportedthat heconducted

conductedtwo

twovideo

videoconference

conferenceinterviews

interviewswith

with

andtwo

and twovirtual

virtualhome

homeobservations

observationsofofFather. SeeEx.

Father. See Ex.C-l

C-1atat2.2.

4141.

. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherstated

statedthat

thatheheand

andMother

Mothermarried

marriedinin2012

2012and

and

thattheir

that theirfirst

firstchild

childwas

was“not

"notexactly

exactly planned,"

exactlyplanned,” butthey

planned,"but theywere

they werenevertheless

neverthelessboth

bothhappy.

both See

happy. See Ex.

SeeEx.

C-1atat7.7.

C-l

42.

42. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherfelt

feltthat

thattheir

theirmarriage was‘all

marriagewas 'allgood’ from

good'from

2015toto2018.

2015 SeeEx.

2018.See Ex.C-l

C-1atat7.7.

43.

43. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherstated

statedthat

thatthe

thecouple

couple wasinina a“little

couplewas "littlebitbitofofa a

funk"

funk”

funk"byby the

bythe end

endofof

theend 2022.

of2022. See Ex.

SeeEx.

2022.See C-1

C-1atat

Ex.C-l at7.7.

44.

44. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatoreported

reported Fatherecounted

thatFather

reportedthat recountedthat

thattheir

theirfirst

firstattempt

attemptatatmarital

attempt marital

counselingwas

counseling was not

wasnot successful

notsuccessful since

successfulsince Mother

sinceMother was

Motherwas not

wasnot

not vested

vestedinin

vested initsits outcome

outcomeoror

itsoutcome or participatingin in

participating

participating thethe

in the

counseling. SeeEx.Ex.C-l

counseling.See C-1at at7. 7.

45.45.

45. The

The

The Evaluator

Evaluator

Evaluator reported

reported

reported that

that

that Father

Father

Father stated

stated

stated that

that hehe

that he would

would become

wouldbecome

become frustrated

frustrated

frustrated and

and

angryat at

angry thethe maritalcounseling

marital counseling sessions

sessions and

and that

that their

their marriage

marriage

marriage continued

continued to to deteriorate.SeeSee

deteriorate. Ex.Ex.

C-1 7. 7.

C-1at at

C-l at

5 5

46.

46. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported

reported that

that Father

Father recounted

recounted Mother

Mother informed

informed Father

Father she

she was

was

filing for

filing for divorce

divorce in

in August See Ex.

2023. See

August 2023. Ex. C-l

C-1 at

at 7.7.

47.

47. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported

reported that

that Father

Father recalled

recalled asking Mother in

asking Mother in December

December 2023

2023

whether their

whether their marriage

marriage was

was dead

dead that

that she

she did

did not

not deny that she

deny that she was

was inin another

another relationship. See

relationship. See

Ex. C-l

Ex. C-1 atat 7.7.

48.

48. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherrecalled

recalledthat

thatMother

Mothertold

toldFather

Fatheron

onor

orabout

about

December27,

December 27,2023,

2023,that

thatshe

shewas

wasinforming

informingthe

theChildren

Childrenof

ofthe

thedivorce

divorceand

andthreatened

threatenedtotocall

callthe

the

liceififhe

police

police hegot

gotupset. SeeEx.

upset. See Ex.C-l

C-1 atat7.7.

49.

49. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fathersaid

saidthat

thatthe

thepolice servedhim

policeserved himon

onororabout

about

January2,2,2024,

January 2024,with

witha aProtection

Protectionfrom

fromAbuse (PFA)

Abuse(“PFA”) Orderand

("PFA)Order andthat agreedtotogive

thatheheagreed giveMother

Mother

exclusivepossession

exclusive possessionofofthe

themarital

maritalhome. SeeEx.

home. See Ex.C-l

C-1atat8.8.

50.

50. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reportedthat

thathe

themarital

maritalhome

homeisisininfair

fairtotopoor conditionand

poorcondition andthat

that

the homedoes

thehome doesnot

notappear

appeartotofollow

followCity/State

City/Stateregulations. SeeEx.

regulations. See Ex.C-l

C-1atat9.9.

51.

51. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatMother’s

reportedthat Mother'sprospective four-bedroom,three-bathroom

prospectivefour-bedroom, three-bathroom

singlefamily

single familyhome

homeininWaldwick,

Waldwick,New

NewJersey,

Jersey,isisininexcellent

excellentcondition. SeeEx.

condition.See Ex.C-l

C-1atat10.10.

52.

52. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherresides

resideswith

withhishisparents

parentsinina athree-bedroom,

three-bedroom,

one-bathroomsingle

one-bathroom homeininDrexel

familyhome

singlefamily DrexelHill,

Hill,Pennsylvania, andthat

Pennsylvania,and thathe

thehome

homeis isininvery

very

goodcondition.

good SeeEx.

condition.See C-1atat10.l10.

Ex.C-l 0.

53.53. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported Motherand

reportedMother andthetheChildren

Childrendemonstrated

demonstratedtypical interactions

typicalinteractions

ofof a well-functioningfamily

a well-functioning familyduring bothvirtual

duringboth virtualhome

homeobservations

observationsofof SeeEx.Ex.C-l

Mother.See

Mother. C-1at at

12.12.

54.54. The

The Evaluator

Evaluator individually

spokeindividually

spoke and

and privately

privately withallall

with threeChildren

three Children

at at

thethe

conclusion

conclusion one

one ofof

thethe virtual

virtual home

home observations

observations at at Mother's

Mother’s SeeEx.Ex.C-lC-1at at13.13.

residence.See

residence.

6 6

55.

55. The Evaluator

The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported

reported that

reported that child

that child C.D.

child C.D. stated that

C.D. stated

stated that he

that he is

he is excited

is excited the

about the

excited about

about the

possibility of

possibility moving

ofmoving New

to New

moving to

to Jersey

New Jersey but

Jersey but

but fears

fears Father

that Father

fears that

that will

Father will not

will not like

not like him

like him if

him if he

if he does.

he does. See Ex.

does. See

See Ex. C-

Ex. C-

C-

1ll at 13.

at 13.

13.

56.

56. The Evaluator

The Evaluator

The reported

Evaluator reported that

that C.D.

reported that C.D. specifically

C.D. specifically recounted the

recounted the

specifically recounted incident

the incident

incident when

when Father

Father

allegedly

allegedly carried

allegedly carried one

carried one of

one of the

ofthe Children

the Children up

Children up the

the stairs

up the stairs and

stairs and threw

and threw him

threw him bed and

onto aaa bed

onto

him onto bed and his

and his knee went

knee went

his knee went

through the

through

through the wall. See

thewall.

wall. See

See Ex. C-1 atat

Ex. C-l

Ex. C-1 at 113.

13.

57.

57. TheEvaluator

The

The Evaluator reported

Evaluatorreported that C.D.

that C.D.

reportedthat volunteered

C.D. volunteered that

volunteeredthat Fathertold

thatFather

Father told him

told him and

him and the

and the other

the other

other

Children

Children that

Childrenthat Mother

thatMother cheated

Mothercheated on

cheatedon him,

onhim, that

him,that their

thattheir grandfather

theirgrandfather told

grandfathertold to look

themtoto

toldthem

them atthe

lookatat

look the seventh

the seventh

seventh

commandment

commandment for

commandmentfor adultery,

foradultery, and

adultery,and that

andthat Father

thatFather wasinin

Fatherwas

was disbelief

indisbelief theChildren

thatthe

disbeliefthat

that the Children would their

turntheir

wouldturn

Childrenwould turn their

backs

backs on

backson him.

onhim. See

him. See Ex.

SeeEx. C-1

Ex.C-l 13.

at13.

C-1 atat 13.

58.

58. The Evaluator

TheEvaluator

The reported

Evaluatorreported that

thatchild

reportedthat child J.D.recalled

childJ.D.

J.D. recalledinstances

recalled instances when Father him

hurthim

Fatherhurt

whenFather

instanceswhen hurt him

multiple

multiple timesinin

times

multipletimes the

inthe See

past. See

thepast. Ex.

SeeEx. C-1atat

C-1

Ex.C-l 14.

at14.

14.

59.

59. The

TheEvaluator

The Evaluator reported

Evaluatorreported that

reportedthat J.D. statedthat

J.D.stated

thatJ.D. stated that wantstoto

hewants

thathehe wants move NewJersey

toNew

movetoto

tomove New and

Jerseyand

Jersey and

heisis

thathehe

that

that not

isnot worried

notworried that

worriedthat Father

thatFather will

Fatherwill seethe

willsee

see the Children less. SeeEx.

less. See

Childrenless.

theChildren See Ex. 14.

at14.

C-1atat

Ex.C-l

C-1 14.

60.

60. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported

reported thatchild

reportedthat childE.D.

E.D.stated

statedthat

thatshe enjoysspending

sheenjoys

enjoys timewith

spendingtime with

Mother

Motherand

Mother and Father,

andFather, but

Father,but that

butthat Fathersometimes

thatFather

Father sometimes ather

yellsatat

sometimesyells

yells her and herbrothers.

andher

herand her brothers. SeeEx.

brothers. See

See C-1atat

Ex.C-l

Ex. C-1 14.

at14.14.

6161.

61.

. The

TheEvaluator

The Evaluator reportedthat

Evaluatorreported

reported thatE.D.

that E.D. deniedthat

E.D.denied

denied that orFather

Motheroror

thatMother

Mother Father mean or

heroror

toher

meantoto

ismean

Fatherisis her

hurts

hurts her.

hurtsher. SeeEx.

her.See

See Ex. C-1

Ex.C-l 14.

at14.

C-1atat 14.

62.

62. The Evaluatoreported

TheEvaluator

The Evaluator reported thatFather

reportedthat

that Fatherand

Father Childrendemonstrated

andChildren

and Children demonstrated natural and

naturaland

demonstratednatural and

positive

positive interactions

interactionsduring

positiveinteractions during bothvirtual

duringboth

both virtualhome

virtual home observations. SeeEx.

observations.See

homeobservations. See 15.

at15.15.

C-1atat

Ex.C-l

Ex. C-1

63.

63. TheEvaluator

The spokeindividually

Evaluatorspoke

spoke andprivately

individuallyand withallallthree

privatelywith threeChildren

Childrenatatthe

the

conclusionofofone

conclusion oneofof thevirtual

the virtualhome

homeobservations

observationsatatFather’s

Father'sresidence. SeeEx.

residence.See

See Ex.C-l

C-1atat15.15.

7 77

64. The Evaluator reported that C.D. spoke of Father yelling and that Father will

sometimes ofthe

one of

grab one

sometimes grab the other

other Children

Children ififthey See Ex.

misbehave. See

they misbehave. C-1 at

Ex. C-l 16.

at 16.

65. The Evaluator reported that C.D. stated that he thinks moving to New Jersey is a

good be good.

will be

change will

the change

thatthe

and that

idea and

good idea good. See

good. See Ex. C-1 atat 16.

Ex. C-l 16.

66. The Evaluator reported that J.D. stated that Father has hurt him many times, such

asputting

as chokehold

him ininaachoke

puttinghim "outof

hold“out ofanger” hemisbehaved.

whenhe

anger"when SeeEx.

misbehaved. See C-1 atat 16.

Ex. C-l 16.

67.

67. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported that J.D.

reported that J.D. stated

stated he

he would like to

to move

move to

to New

New Jersey and

and

67. The Evaluator reported that J.D. stated he would like to move to New Jersey and

that

that helikes

thathe 1likes the

ikesthe currentcustody

current

thecurrent custodyarrangement. Ex.C-l

SeeEx.

arrangement. See Ex. C-1atat

C-1 at17.

17.

68.

68. The Evaluator

The that E.D.

reported that

Evaluator reported E.D. recalled

recalled she

she likes

likes to have camp

to have outs when they

outs when

campouts

68. The Evaluator reported that E.D. recalled she likes to have camp when they

sleep downstairs. See

sleepdownstairs.

sleep downstairs. Ex.C-l

SeeEx.

Ex. C-1atat

C-1 at17.

17.

69.

69. TheEvaluator

The

The Evaluator reportedthat

Evaluatorreported

reported thatE.D.

that E.D.stated

E.D. statedthat

stated thatFather

that Father willbebe

will

Fatherwill bemean

meanand

mean andyell

and yellwhen

yell when

when

shegets

she intotrouble.

getsinto

gets SeeEx.

trouble. See C-1atat17.

Ex.C-l 17.

70.

70. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported that E.D.

that

reportedthat E.D. said

said that

that she

she wants to move

wants to move to

to New

New Jersey and

and

70. The Evaluator reported E.D. said that she wants to move to New Jersey and

likes NewJersey.

houseininNew

Mother'shouse

likesMother’s SeeEx.

Jersey.See C-1atat17.17.

Ex.C-l

71. The Evaluator reported that Mother explained

explained her reasoning to relocate to New

71 . The Evaluator reported that Mother explained her reasoning to relocate to New

Jerseyis ismotivated

Jersey

Jersey herdesire

motivatedbybyher providea better

desiretotoprovide

provide lifeforforher

life

a betterlife childrenininterms

herchildren financial,

termsofoffinancial,

educational,and

educational,

educational, andemotional

and emotional attainment.See

attainment.

emotionalattainment. Ex.C-l

SeeEx.

Ex. C-1 17.

C-1at at17.17.

72. The Evaluator reported that Mother has numerous concerns related to Father's

72. The Evaluator reported that Mother has numerous concerns related to Father’s

historyofof

history and

emotionaland

emotional physical

physical lack

abuse,lack

abuse, ofof primarycaregiving,

primary giving,

care giving, and

and history

history ofof excessive

excessive

drinking

drinking driving

andriving

and thethe

under

under See

influence.See

influence. Ex.Ex.

C-lC-1at at18.18.

73. The Evaluator reported that Mother petitioned for three PFA orders related to

Father's

Father’s alleged

alleged abuse

abuse

abuse which

which

which were

were

were withdrawn

withdrawn

withdrawn and/or

and/or

and/or dismissed.SeeSee

dismissed.

dismissed. Ex.

C-lC-1

Ex.Ex. C-1 at

18.18.

at at 18.

8 8

74.

74. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported

reported that

that Mother

Mother recounted

recounted the

the numerous

numerous reports to Children

reports to Children

and Youth Services

and Youth Services (“CYS”)

("CYS") related

related to

to alleged abuse by

alleged abuse Father which

by Father which were

were all

all unfounded. See

unfounded. See

Ex. C-l

Ex. C-1 at

at 18.

18.

75.

75. The Evaluator

The Evaluator reported that Mother

reported that Mother stated

stated she

she possessed numerous concerns

possessed numerous concerns

relatedto

related to the

the condition

condition of

ofthe

the marital

marital home. See Ex.

home. See Ex. C-l

C-1 atat 18.

18.

76.

76. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherisisnot

notininagreement withMother’s

agreementwith Mother'splan

plantoto

relocatethe

relocate theChildren

ChildrentotoNew

NewJersey. SeeEx.

Jersey. See Ex. C-l

C-1 atat 19.

19.

77.

77. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherdenied

deniedMother’s

Mother'saccusations

accusationsof

ofphysical and

physicaland

emotionalabuse.

emotional SeeEx.

abuse. See Ex.C-l

C-1 atat20.

20.

78.

78. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatheracknowledged thatthe

acknowledgedthat themultiple reportstotoCYS

multiplereports CYS

weredetermined

were determinedtotobebeunfounded. SeeEx.

unfounded. See Ex.C-l

C-1atat20.

20.

79.

79. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherstated

statedheheatattimes

timesphysically restrainsone

physicallyrestrains oneofof

theChildren

the Childrenwhen

whenthey

theybecome

becomephysically

physicallyaggressive andout

aggressiveand outofofcontrol. SeeEx.

control. See Ex.C-l

C-1atat

at 20.

20.

80.

80. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherfeels

feelsMother

Mothercoached

coachedthe

theChildren. Ex.C-C-

SeeEx.

Children.See

1 latat20.

20.

8181.

. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatoreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherstated

statedthat

thathehebelieved

believedthe

thepoor conditionofof

poorcondition

themarital

the maritalhome waslargely

homewas theresult

largelythe resultofof Mother'smodifications

Mother’s modificationsororher

herrefusal

refusaltotopermit

permitthethe

necessaryimprovements.

necessary SeeEx.

improvements.See Ex.C-l

C-1atat20.20.

82.82. TheEvaluator

The Evaluatorreported thatFather

reportedthat Fatherbelieves Motherhas

believesMother theChildren

preventedthe

hasprevented Children

fromengaging

from engagingin inextracurricular

extracurricularactivities

activitiesororsocialization

socializationin in Pennsylvaniasosoasasto toinfluence

Pennsylvania influence

thethe

outcomeofof

outcome custody

custody SeeEx.

proceedings.See

proceedings. Ex.C-l

C-1at at

20.20.

83.83. The

The Evaluator

Evaluator reported

reported that

that Father

Father believes

believes thethe Children's

Children’s participationin in

participation youth

youth

is is

sports

sports a necessary

a necessary way to to

way provide

provide stability

stability and

and normally

normally forfor

thethe Children.

Children.

9 9

84. The Evaluator recommended that Mother and Father have shared legal custody of

the primary physical

maintains primary

Mother maintains

while Mother

Children while

the Children physical custody Father receives

and Father

custody and receives partial

partial

physical custody.

physical See Ex.

custody. See

custody. Ex. C-l 35.

C-1 atat 35.

85.

permitted to relocate the Children to

The Evaluator recommended that Mother be permitted

The Evaluator recommended that Mother be permitted to relocate the Children to

New schools. See

local schools.

the local

attendthe

them attend

havethem

and have

Jersey and

NewJersey Ex. C-l

SeeEx. C-I atat35.

C-1 35.

86.

86. The Evaluator

The Evaluator testified

testified that

that he

he explained the

the process to the

processtoto the parents

parentsprior to

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.