IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION – LAW

A. A. J.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. S. J.,

Defendant.

No.: C-48-CV-2013-7166

OPINION OF THE COURT

Plaintiff is A. A. J. (“Mother”), and Defendant is C. S. J. (“Father”).

Mother and Father were married on March 4, 2006 and separated on July 15,

2013. They are the parents of L. C. J., born on May 23, 2009 (the “Child”).

Under the existing Custody Order, entered by Order of Court on February

28, 2014, the parties have shared legal custody, Mother has primary

physical custody, and Father has supervised partial physical custody with

two five-hour supervised visits each week at times to be agreed upon by the

parties and the supervisor. See Custody Order, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-

7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Feb. 28, 2014) (the “2014 Custody Order”).

This matter is before the court on Mother’s Child Custody Relocation

Petition. The parties appeared for a trial on November 12, 2014. See Notes

of Testimony, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Nov.

12, 2014) (“N.T.”). At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed the

2

parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by

December 5, 2014. See Order of Court, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-7166

(C.P. Northampton Co. Nov. 12, 2014). Mother submitted proposed findings

of fact, conclusions of law and a legal brief on December 4, 2014. See

Plaintiff’s Findings of Fact, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P.

Northampton Co. Dec. 4, 2014) (“Plaintiff’s Findings of Fact”); Plaintiff’s

Legal Brief, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Dec. 4,

2014) (“Plaintiff’s Legal Brief”). Father did not submit proposed findings of

fact, conclusions of law or a legal brief. For the reasons that follow, Mother’s

Child Custody Relocation Petition is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Custody Litigation

On July 29, 2013, Mother obtained a Protection from Abuse Order

(“PFA”) for herself and the Child. See J. v. J., No. C-48-PF-2013-547 (C.P.

Northampton Co. July 29, 2013). The PFA evicted Father from the family

home. See id. Thereafter, Mother filed a complaint seeking primary

physical custody of the Child. See id. at 4. At a custody conference on

August 9, 2013, the parties entered into an agreed-upon custody order

providing that they would have shared legal custody, that Mother would

have primary physical custody, that Father would have supervised partial

physical custody with one visit each Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,

and that their mutual friend, J. V. (“V.”), would serve as supervisor for

3

Father’s visits. See Custody Order, J. v. J., No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P.

Northampton Co. Aug. 9, 2013) (the “2013 Custody Order”).

Father repeatedly violated the terms of the PFA by exiting his car at

custody exchanges and attempting to engage Mother in conversations about

issues unrelated to child care. See Notes of Testimony at 115, J. v. J., No.

C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Jan. 15, 2014) (“N.T. Jan. 15,

2014”). Mother filed a petition for contempt of the PFA, which was heard on

September 9, 2013. See id. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Mother

would withdraw her petition for contempt and that Father would (1) adhere

to the 2014 Custody Order, including the provision for supervised visitation;

(2) remain in the car during custodial exchanges; and (3) limit all

communication with Mother to issues concerning the Child. See id.; J. v. J.,

No. C-48-PF-2013-547 (C.P. Northampton Co. Sept. 9, 2013).

On November 14, 2013, Father filed a Petition for Modification of

Custody, seeking to expand his custodial time to fifty percent of the Child’s

daytime hours and to eliminate the supervision requirement for his periods

of partial physical custody. See N.T. Jan. 15, 2014 at 2-3. On February 28,

2014, following a custody trial, the court denied Father’s Petition for

Modification, but expanded Father’s custodial time to two five-hour

supervised visits each week at times to be agreed upon by the parties and

the supervisor. See 2014 Custody Order. The Custody Order provided that

ninety days after the date of the Order, and upon completion of a home

4

evaluation and a psychological evaluation, Father could petition the court for

further modification of the 2014 Custody Order. See id.

Mother filed the instant Child Custody Relocation Petition on

September 10, 2014. See Child Custody Relocation Petition, J. v. J., No. C-

48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Sept. 10, 2014) (“Relocation

Petition”). Father filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the relocation on

September 18, 2014. See Counter Affidavit Regarding Relocation, J. v. J.,

No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Sept. 18, 2014) (“Counter

Affidavit”). The matter was assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr.,

by Order of Court dated September 22, 2014. See Order of Court, J. v. J.,

No. C-48-CV-2013-7166 (C.P. Northampton Co. Sept. 22, 2014) (the

“Relocation Order”). A hearing was held on November 12, 2014. See N.T.

Mother, Father, Mother’s mother, L. G. (“Maternal Grandmother”), Mother’s

father, J. G. (“Maternal Grandfather”) (collectively “Maternal Grandparents”),

and the court-approved supervisor, V., testified at the hearing. See id.

I. The Child’s Development, Functioning, and Well-Being

The parties agreed that it would not be prudent to have the Child

testify in this matter. See N.T. at 3-4. The Child was not able to

communicate effectively at the last custody trial in January, 2014. See id. at

4. Additionally, on July 21, 2014, the Child was diagnosed with autism,

which further impedes the Child’s ability to effectively communicate with the

court. See id.

5

The Child attends full-day kindergarten and behavior support classes

at Buchanan Elementary School. See id. at 9. While at school, the Child

receives occupational and speech therapy treatments. See id. at 25. After

school, the Child is bussed to daycare, where he remains until Mother leaves

work. See id. A therapist currently works with the Child after school at the

daycare, however Mother believes the daycare is not willing to continue

providing the therapist for the Child after school hours. See id. at 13.

The Child has a history of behavioral problems. His pre-school

teachers informed Mother that the Child strikes other children, throws

things, and is generally difficult to control. See id. at 12-13. Due to this

behavior, Mother brought the Child to KidsPeace for an evaluation. See id.

at 10. The evaluators at KidsPeace determined that the Child is autistic.

See id. Because of this diagnosis, the Child currently receives weekly

outpatient therapy, and takes medication daily to help reduce his aggressive

tendencies. See id. at 12.

Despite the treatment and the Child’s enrollment in the behavior

support classes, Mother testified that the Child’s behavior is still very

volatile. See id. at 19-21. The Child has accrued five code of conduct

violations at Buchanan Elementary School since the school year began. See

id. The Child received these violations for stabbing a child in the chest with

a pencil, threatening, hitting and kicking people, and throwing things. See

id. Mother testified that this behavior often occurs when the Child does not

6

get his way or if there are changes in his routine. See id. at 21, 31.

Nonetheless, both Mother and Father maintain that most of the time the

Child is very pleasant. See id. at 21. In addition to his behavioral problems,

the Child experiences delays in his cognitive, adaptive, and social skills. See

id. at 25-26.

II. The Parties’ Employment

In August of 2014, Mother began a new position with her same

employer, working from 1:30 p.m. until 10 p.m., Monday through Friday.

See id. at 7. Mother testified that she took this position because this shift

pays more than her previous position and it was in the Child’s best interest

to be able to spend his weekends at home. See id. at 7, 14. If the

relocation is approved, Mother believes she would be able to obtain a similar

position in Ocala, Florida. See id. at 16.

In the past, Father has had difficulty maintaining employment. See

2014 Custody Order. Father testified that he is currently temporarily

employed by Integrity Staffing Solutions, working for Amazon. See id. at

69. Father stated that he is looking into procuring jobs with either

KidsPeace, or a trucking company which would route him out of the Ocala,

Florida area. See id. at 66.

7

III. The Parties’ Living Arrangements

Mother and the Child live in an apartment in Freemansburg,

Pennsylvania. See id. at 6. The Child has no siblings, and Mother is solely

responsible for paying for the rent and utilities. See id. at 9. In the event

the relocation is approved, Mother and Maternal Grandparents plan to use a

realtor to find a suitable apartment in Ocala, Florida for Mother and the

Child. See id. at 17. If Mother is not able to secure an apartment by the

time of the relocation, Mother and the Child would reside with Maternal

Grandparents. See id. at 17.

At the time of the previous custody trial, Father resided with the court-

approved supervisor, V. See 2014 Custody Order. Father no longer resides

with V. See N.T. at 58. After Father moved out of V.’s residence, he lived in

an attic apartment with a man he met through a Craigslist advertisement.

See id. at 68. Father currently lives with a friend and her boyfriend. See id.

at 67. Further, Father testified that he did not obtain the home evaluation

recommended by the court’s February 28, 2014 Custody order because he

does not have a home that is suitable for the Child. See id. at 79.

IV. The Parties’ Parenting

Pursuant to the February 28, 2014 Custody Order, Mother currently

exercises primary physical custody of the Child. See 2014 Custody Order.

Mother is primarily financially responsible for the Child. See N.T. at 8.

Father does not regularly pay child support. See id. Mother currently

8

receives childcare benefits and medical assistance through the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See id. at 8-9.

Following the Child’s recent autism diagnosis, Mother researched and

pursued options to assist the Child. See id. Pursuant to medical

recommendations, Mother currently takes the Child to outpatient therapy for

his autism once per month. See id. at 12. Mother also provides the Child

with daily medication to help with his aggression, and is researching an

intense therapy program called BHRS in order to help the Child function

better in social situations. See id.

Mother takes the Child to orthopedic appointments for a problem the

Child has with his hip. See id. at 24. Mother currently performs the therapy

required for the Child’s hip at home because the child’s behavioral issues

prevent him from receiving therapy outside of his home. See id. at 25.

Father’s visitation with the Child is supervised by V. See id. at 57. V.

testified that when Father has the Child, they typically bring the Child to

places such as McDonalds, shopping malls, and the movies. See id. On

most occasions, V. and Father allow the Child to direct their activities. See

id. at 60. V. testified that the Child sometimes has aggressive outbursts,

but that Father is able to calm the Child following these outbursts. See id.

at 63.

Father has not been able to completely abide by the visitation schedule

that was implemented in the February 28, 2014 Custody Order. See id. at

9

7. On a number of occasions, Father has needed to cancel visitation with

the Child because of V.’s work schedule and Father’s incarceration due to

non-payment of child support. See id. However, Mother admits that Father

normally uses his best efforts to see the Child. See id. at 39.

V. Father’s Mental Health

Father has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. See id. at 72.

Father is currently seeing a psychiatrist through Lehigh Valley Hospital,

Muhlenberg. See id. at 70-71. The psychiatrist does not provide Father with

counseling, and is only responsible for checking Father’s medications. See

id. at 71. Father is currently on three medications for his bipolar disorder,

which he states that he takes every day. See id. at 72. At the time of trial,

Father could not remember the names of the medications. See id. Although

Father was aware that the 2014 Custody Order placed a precondition to

petitioning for expanded custody of the Child on Father receiving a

psychiatric evaluation, he had not received a psychiatric evaluation at the

time of the trial. See id. at 77.

VI. Proposed Advantages for the Relocation

Mother believes that it would be in the Child’s best interest for Mother

and Child to relocate to Ocala, Florida. Mother’s primary motivation for the

relocation is that Maternal Grandparents reside in Ocala, Florida and would

be able to assist her in caring for the Child. See id. at 13. The therapy

recommended by the KidsPeace evaluators would require the Child to attend

10

various appointments during the week, which Mother cannot accomplish in

Pennsylvania due to her work schedule. See id. at 13. Further, Mother

believes that the Child will not receive everything he needs by staying in

Pennsylvania because Mother does not have the assistance necessary to

provide for the Child’s needs. See id. at 26.

Mother does not have any family support in Bethlehem. See id. at 16.

Maternal Grandparents are retired and reside in Ocala, Florida. See id. at

40, 50. Maternal Grandmother described her relationship with the Child as a

close relationship. See id. at 42. Maternal Grandmother and Maternal

Grandfather both testified that in the event the relocation was approved,

they would take the Child to any of his doctor or therapist appointments that

Mother could not attend. See id. at 45, 51. Additionally, Maternal

Grandfather testified that if the relocation were approved, he would be

willing to help Mother perform the Child’s therapy for his hip. See id. at 52.

Mother believes that the Child would have more educational

opportunities in Florida. See id. at 14. After researching the Florida school

systems, Mother discovered that the state has implemented specialized

autistic classrooms. See id. These classrooms utilize an alternate type of

therapy from the BHRS services, called the Teach Program, which would

allow the Child to receive therapy during the school day. See id. Mother

believes that this would benefit the Child because it would put less stress on

the Child to complete therapy during his non-school hours. See id. at 14-15.

11

Maternal Grandmother, a retired teacher, also researched the Florida school

system, and discovered that the school district the Child would be enrolled in

has at least three classrooms with teachers certified in autism. See id. at

43.

Maternal Grandparents also believe that the relocation will be

beneficial for Mother as well as the Child. See id. at 46. Maternal

Grandmother stated that Mother is very stressed because she is not

currently able to provide the Child with the therapy he needs because of a

lack of assistance. See id. at 46. Maternal Grandfather stated that he

believes that Mother’s move to Florida would alleviate her stress level

because of her ability to receive familial assistance in Florida. See id. at 51.

VII. Mother’s Proposed Custody Schedule for the Relocation

If Mother’s relocation petition is granted, Mother proposes Father

receive supervised visitation of the Child for one week during the school

year, and one week during the summer. See id. at 23. Mother would also

encourage communication between Father and the Child via Skype,

telephone calls, and Facetime. See id. at 23-24. However, Mother did note

that the Child has a limited attention span which would make this type of

communication difficult to achieve. See id. at 24.

12

VIII. Father’s Concerns about the Relocation

Father believes that the relocation would not be in the Child’s best

interest. See id. at 65. Father is concerned that the Maternal Grandparents

are controlling, and that the Child might not have the most positive

relationship with them. See id. at 65-66. Father’s greatest concern is that

this move is going to limit his time with his son, who Father refers to as “my

best friend that I’ve ever had.” See id. at 66. However, Father indicated

that if Mother moves to Florida with the Child, he will move there as well in

order to maintain his relationship with his son. See id. at 66-67. Father

believes that his relocation would take approximately six months to

complete. See id. at 66.

DISCUSSION

I. Relocation Factors

A court’s determination of relocation is governed by the Child Custody

Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337. Section 5337 provides in pertinent part that:

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,

13

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.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h). However, the “ultimate guidepost” in any child

custody case, including a relocation dispute, is the child’s best interest.

Meyer-Liedtke v. Liedtke, 762 A.2d 1111, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2000)

14

II. Application of the Statutory Factors

The Court must now evaluate the parties’ claims, giving consideration

to the factors set forth in the Child Custody Statute.

(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.

The court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Mother. Mother has

been the Child’s primary caretaker for the past eighteen months. During

this period, Mother was solely responsible for taking the Child to school and

doctor’s appointments. Mother was also primarily financially responsible for

the Child, as Father did not regularly make the court ordered child support

payments.

In contrast, for the past eighteen months, Father has not had a

parental role in the Child’s life. During this time period, Father was limited

to a weekly supervised visit with the Child. Although the court provided

Father with a mechanism to potentially eliminate the supervision

requirement and increase Father’s custodial time with the Child, Father

never completed the required home study and psychological evaluation.

Although the evidence suggests that Father and the Child have a

loving relationship, because Father has not completed the required home

study and psychological evaluation he cannot serve as the primary

caregiver. Therefore, we find that because Mother is the only party who can

currently serve as the Child’s primary caregiver, the Child’s relationship with

15

Mother is more extensive than the Child’s current relationship with Father.

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of Mother.

(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.

The court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Mother’s

proposed relocation. The Child in this case is five years old, and with

his recent autism diagnosis, exhibits special needs. The Child has

significant behavioral issues which are currently being addressed in a

behavioral support classroom at Buchanan Elementary School.

However, because of Mother’s work schedule, Father’s limited role in

the Child’s life, and Mother’s lack of support in the area, the Child is

not currently receiving all of the therapies recommended for his

autism diagnosis. If Mother relocates to Florida, Maternal

Grandparents have stated that they would be willing to assist Mother

financially, emotionally, and by taking the Child to medical

appointments that Mother cannot attend. Further, the school district

to which Mother plans to relocate offers more in terms of certified

teachers and behavioral programs for the Child’s special needs than

the Child is currently receiving. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor

of Mother’s relocation.

16

(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.

The court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Mother’s

proposed relocation. If the relocation is approved, Mother is willing

to offer Father supervised visitation two weeks per year. Although

this is less than Father’s current schedule of weekly visitation with

the Child, Father has not always been able to abide by the weekly

schedule. Additionally, Mother has testified that she will encourage

the Child to communicate with Father by telephone, Skype or

Facetime, if Father is able to obtain the necessary equipment to use

such services. Further, Father testified that if relocation is granted,

he plans to relocate to Florida within six months, where weekly

visitations can continue and perhaps even increase. Therefore, this

factor weighs in favor of Mother’s proposed relocation.

(4) The child’s preference, taking into consideration the age

and maturity of the child.

Due to the Child’s failure to effectively communicate at the last

court proceeding, coupled with his recent autism diagnosis, the

parties agreed that it would not be prudent for the Child to testify.

Therefore, this factor is inapplicable.

17

(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.

There was no evidence presented at the hearing that either

party undertook efforts to thwart the relationship of the child with the

other party. Therefore this factor is inapplicable.

(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.

The court finds that the relocation will enhance Mother’s

general quality of life. Father has not been able to consistently pay

child support or render assistance with the Child’s medical needs,

thus placing the entire burden on Mother. In Florida, Mother will

have the emotional and financial support of her parents. Maternal

Grandparents are willing and able to help Mother attend to the Child’s

special needs, which Maternal Grandfather believes will greatly

reduce Mother’s stress level. Additionally, Mother believes that she

will be able to transfer through her employer to a similar position in

Ocala, Florida. Therefore this factor overwhelmingly favors Mother’s

proposed relocation.

18

(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.

The court finds that the relocation will enhance the Child’s

general quality of life. We have found that Mother’s quality of life will

be greatly increased by her relocation to Florida. Mother’s increased

quality of life will certainly have a positive impact on the general

quality of life for the Child. Additionally, Mother will have a support

system in the form of Maternal Grandparents in the event of a

proposed relocation. This support system will allow the Child to

attend medical and therapist appointments that he currently cannot

attend due to Mother’s lack of a support system in Pennsylvania.

Further, the school district where the Child will be enrolled offers

specialized classrooms that the Child cannot attend in Pennsylvania.

The ability to attend more appointments and participate in a

specialized classroom environment will certainly improve the Child’s

quality of life. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Mother’s

proposed relocation.

(8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or

opposing the relocation.

The court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Mother.

Mother seeks to relocate with the Child in order to provide him with a

better education and a more intensive and consistent therapy

program for his special needs. Conversely, Father opposes the

19

relocation because the Child is Father’s “best friend,” and the

relocation would mean that Father would not get to see the Child as

often as the current custody situation permits. Although we

recognize the importance of the Father’s bond with the Child,

Mother’s motivation for relocation considers the best interest of the

Child, while Father’s motivation for opposing the relocation mainly

implicates Father’s best interests. Therefore, we find that this factor

weighs in favor of Mother’s proposed 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.

There is a history of abuse in this case, committed by Father against

Mother. Mother obtained a PFA against Father in August of 2013. Since that

time, Father has violated the PFA and been incarcerated for contempt on one

occasion. However, for the past ten months, Father has complied with the

terms of the PFA. Father is currently taking medication, and does not

currently pose a risk of harm to the child. Therefore, this factor is neutral as

between Mother and Father.

III. Balancing the Factors

All of the statutory factors weigh in favor of Mother and of Mother’s

proposed relocation. Mother is the Child’s primary caregiver, and has been

almost solely responsible for providing for the Child’s emotional, physical,

and mental needs for the past eighteen months. Although Father clearly

20

cares deeply for the Child, he is not currently in a position to take a parental

role in the Child’s life.

Mother’s relocation will increase the Child’s educational opportunities,

allow the Child to receive additional therapies for his special needs, and will

greatly reduce the stress in Mother’s life. Despite the fact the relocation will

potentially reduce the Child’s visitation time with Father, the Child will have

a greater support system in place in Florida. Additionally, Father has

indicated that he will relocate to Florida if the Child relocates to Florida.

Therefore, the Child’s visitation with Father could continue, and perhaps

even increase if Father undertakes the necessary steps.

WHEREFORE, we enter the following:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION – LAW

A. A. J.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. S. J.,

Defendant.

No.: C-48-CV-2013-7166

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of

Plaintiff A. A. J.’s (“Mother”) Child Custody Relocation Petition seeking

relocation to Ocala, Florida, the response of Defendant C. S. J. (“Father”)

thereto, and the testimony presented thereon at a non-jury trial on

November 12, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Mother’s

Child Custody Relocation Petition is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED

that:

1. LEGAL CUSTODY. The parties shall continue to share legal custody

of their minor child, L. C. J. (the “Child”). Attendant therewith, they

shall make all major decision affecting the life of the child, including

but not limited to those decisions regarding the health, welfare,

education, religious training and upbringing for the child, together

with consultation. Accordingly, each party shall notify the other of

2

any activity or occurrence that could be reasonably expected to be

of concern to the other. However, day-to-day decisions with regard

to the Child shall be the sole province of the parent in custody of the

child at the time. Finally, both parties shall, pursuant to this award

of shared legal custody, be entitled to obtain all information and

records regarding the Child from medical and dental providers, the

Child’s school, all other entities, and one another.

2. PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Mother shall continue to exercise primary

physical custody of the child, subject to Father’s exercise of

supervised partial physical custody of the Child, as follows:

a. In the event Father remains in Pennsylvania, Father shall

exercise supervised visitation of the Child for one week during

the summer and for one week during the Child’s winter

vacation. The parties shall agree upon the weeks for the

Child’s visitation with Father one month before Father

exercises this supervised visitation. Mother shall bear the

costs of transporting Child to and from Pennsylvania. Jeremy

V. shall continue in his capacity as supervisor.

b. In the event Father relocates to the Ocala, Florida area, Father

shall exercise custody of the Child pursuant to the February

28, 2014 Order of Court. However, the parties shall agree

upon a supervisor to replace V.

3

3. HOLIDAYS. In the event Father relocates to Florida, the parties

shall abide by the holiday schedule established by the Order of Court

dated February 28, 2014. However, if Father remains in

Pennsylvania, the parties shall exercise holiday time as the parties

may agree.

4. NON-INTERFERENCE. Neither parent shall undertake or permit

any other person to deride, ridicule, condemn, or in any manner

derogate the other parent, or extended family members of either

parent. Nor shall either party attempt or condone any attempt,

directly or indirectly to estrange the Child from the other parent or

extended family. Both parents shall refrain from interfering with the

other parent’s periods of physical custody. At all times, each parent

shall encourage and foster in the Child a sincere respect and

affection for the other parent, and shall not hamper the natural

development of the Child’s love and respect for the other parent or

their respective family members.

5. COMMUNICATION. Each parent shall communicate with each

other in writing concerning the Child only, by either handwritten

notes, text messages or email. The parties shall not use the Child

as a messenger or intermediary in their communications.

4

6. PFA. To the extent not modified herein, the terms of the existing

PFA Order shall remain in full force and effect.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

MICHAEL J. KOURY, JR., J.