Wentz, M. v. Wentz, D.

Summary

This concurring statement addresses the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's denial of allowance of appeal in a child-custody and relocation dispute. Justice Wecht expresses concern about the trial court's rapid reversal of a prior custody order, its treatment of the mother's adult vacation, and its consideration of the father's changed circumstances, but concludes that the petition did not adequately develop arguments warranting review under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1114(b). Justice McCaffery joined the concurring statement.

Holdings

1. Allowance of appeal should be denied because Mother's petition did not meaningfully develop the Rule 1114(b) criteria or adequately present the potentially significant relocation and appellate-review issues.
2. The concurrence identifies, but does not decide, whether section 5337's relocation factors apply when a custody modification causes the children to move a significant distance and what distance qualifies as significant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether allowance of appeal should be granted to review the Superior Court's affirmance of the trial court's custody modification and order requiring the children to move back to Pennsylvania.
2. Whether the statutory relocation factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337 must be considered when neither parent is relocating but a custody modification would cause the children to move a significant distance.
3. What constitutes a significant distance for purposes of applying the relocation provisions of the Pennsylvania Child Custody Act.
4. Whether the Superior Court improperly deferred to the trial court despite concerns about the trial court's abrupt reversal of its prior custody order and its fact-finding.

Disposition

other