Neighborhood Attorneys, LLC
Follow Neighborhood Attorneys on ...
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Oil and Gas
  • Attorneys
    • Knestrick
    • Roberts
  • Contact Us
  • Friends
  • Blog

Practitioners Finding Flaws with New Relocation Statute

8/22/2012

1 Comment

 
By Leigh Lyons, Esquire

As a part of the new child custody law, a statute regarding relocation in Pennsylvania (23 Pa.C.S. § 5337) was enacted and put into effect on January 24, 2011.  Over a year has passed since the initial statute has been put into effect, and practitioners are finding certain pitfalls in the language throughout the statute, and more specifically, what is left out of the statute completely.
             
The new relocation statute, unlike the former statute, defines relocation, which gives practitioners a bit more guidance as to what actually constitutes as a relocation by a party. It also lays out nine factors that the court must consider when deciding
if a relocation is in the best interest of the child, and of course, the tenth factor being just that, any other best interest factor of the child. The statute also gives guidance as to the time and method of service that starts the entire process, but this is where the statute begins to falter.
             
It’s clear that in the law, nothing is so black and white as to fit nicely into any given statute, especially in family law matters. The idea is that if the parties already have a standing custody order, the party wishing to relocate would only need to begin the relocation process by filing a Petition to Relocate (following the required statutory guidelines, of course,) but what if the party who wishes to relocate does not have primary custody?  Does the party then need to file a Custody Complaint to start the process over, or are they required to file a Modification of the already existing custody order, or is the Petition to Relocate enough by itself? This question may very well vary from county to county, and the statute does not provide any insight as to this
question.
             
Once a Petition to Relocate is filed, and the non-relocating party follows the statutory guidelines and filed his/her Counter-Affidavit opposing the relocation, the statute states that the “court shall hold an expedited full hearing on the proposed relocation…”  I’m sure you know my next question: What is considered an expedited  hearing? The statute does not give any type of timeline as to what expedited means, and if we look to the common dictionary definition of the word, we find that to expedite means to: 1.“speed up the progress of; hasten; 2. accomplish promptly, as a piece of  business; dispatch.”  So that helps…a little.  Whereas each county may have different standard timelines for hearings being scheduled, you would be led to believe that the word “expedited” means that it would be faster than normal; however, I have heard of one recent expedited relocation hearing that was set to a date that was over four months away from the time of requesting said expedited hearing. It seems that the word may not be as forceful in the statute as one would think.

The statute does thrive by detailing that negative inferences may be drawn by a party for failing to provide notice to the non-relocating party, and also laying out ten specific factors that the court must consider when scrutinizing whether a relocation may be in the child’s best interest or not, but it seems as though practitioners are coming across more and more flaws with the statute as time goes on.

***If you are considering relocating, even if just to another county within
Pennsylvania, contact Neighborhood Attorneys for your free consultation at
724-705-7082

1 Comment

New Child Custody Law In PA

8/26/2011

1 Comment

 
Monday, January 31, 2011
By Amaris Elliott-Engel, The Legal Intelligencer

Pennsylvania's child custody law is changing this month, bringing the state statute "into the 21st century" after a decade-long reform process. 

As many family lawyers are celebrating the codification of custody law, there are also concerns that some parts of the new framework could result in unfunded state mandates.

Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Emanuel A. Bertin, chair of the Joint State Government Commission's advisory committee on domestic relations law, said the changes to the state's custody law were drafted by the committee more than a  decade ago.

Legislation was originally introduced by state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, but the legislation never advanced to the governor's desk until 2010, according to interviews. The legislation received new life when former state Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Philadelphia, became interested in sponsoring changes to Pennsylvania's custody regime.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell signed the law in November.

The custody law goes into effect this month for all new custody actions, while the old law governs previously filed cases.

"This brings custody law into the 21st century," said Carol Behers, an attorney with Pittsburgh family law boutique Raphael Ramsden & Behers and chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association's family law section from 2008 to 2009. The new custody law will provide consistency around the state, she said.

"There definitely seems to be a lot of variation around the state," and consistency will provide "a sense of uniformity and predictability," she said.

Mark R. Alberts, a principal with Gentile Horoho & Avalli in Pittsburgh and chair of the Allegheny County Bar Association's family law section, said, the "best interests [of children] is still the polestar of custody determinations."

But the new law spells out 16 factors to be weighed in making custody decisions and emphasizes what can and can't be considered in making those decisions, Mr. Alberts said.

Codification
 
The law also says custody decisions must be gender-neutral. Mr. Alberts said that was an important codification of case law because the old statutory law "didn't stop people from feeling that it wasn't [gender-neutral], that there was   somehow inherent bias in the process of custody determinations that tipped the scale in favor of moms or, in some circumstances, in favor of fathers."

Michael E. Bertin, a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel who focuses on family law, said the law now requires that judges give justification for their custody decisions either orally on the record or in written form. That  requirement may help litigants understand better why the judges reach their decisions, both said. (Michael Bertin is the son of Judge Bertin.)

Another advance in the law is the ability of parents who are still residing in the same residence to petition for custody before leaving the residence.

Some counties "don't accept the filing" before you leave the residence, Mr. Bertin said. "Because of backlogs, you don't get into court for some time, and then a status quo starts to form and it might not be best for the child. Now, if you can petition beforehand and get something in place, that alleviates a person  just trying to grab a child."

Megan E. Watson, a partner with boutique family law firm Berner Klaw & Watson in Philadelphia, said the new law had much more extensive provisions about appointing guardians ad litem to represent children's best interests.

Courts don't have time to obtain that information, so the more extensive deployment of this optional part of the law would help the courts, she said.

Consternation
 
While many aspects of the custody law are being welcomed by the state's family bar, there is some concern in the Philadelphia family bar that a couple of provisions of the law will lead to problems.

One provision raising concern is that the new law is expanding the number of crimes that trigger a mandatory evaluation of custody petitioners to include crimes such as driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

The law also requires that the criminal history of the household members living with custody petitioners must be considered. Petitioners and householders must be evaluated to ensure they do not pose a threat of harm to the child.

Concerns were raised at a recent Philadelphia Bar Association meeting that there are not good instruments in place to evaluate whether someone with a criminal history is a threat to children; that sometimes the person in a child's life who is the best person to take care of the child is someone with a criminal  conviction; and that the law seems to bar judges from entering custody orders  until the evaluations are done.

Ms. Watson said the concerns with these provisions are the practical hurdles of how a court is supposed to find out who a petitioner's household members are; how the criminal histories are supposed to be accessed nationally when there is
  no ability in the court to check federal crime databases; and how the evaluations are supposed be paid for in the strapped 1st Judicial District.

 "That is a huge deal in Philadelphia because we just don't have the money to do that," Ms. Watson said.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11031/1121174-499.stm#ixzz1WCuXoZJi
1 Comment

    Author

    William Knestrick, Esquire
    Jessica Roberts, Esquire

    Archives

    October 2018
    August 2016
    June 2014
    April 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    August 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    August 2011

    Categories

    All
    Assessment
    Custody
    Family Law
    Oil And Gas
    Real Estate

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.