2014 Pa. Super. 48 - A.V. v. S.T.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Both parties are likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between [] Child and each other. 2. Both parties have adequately performed parental duties for [ ] Child. 3. In as much as [] Child is only 3 years old and is not yet enrolled in school, this is the best time for the parents to share custody equally. Obviously, once [] Child is enrolled in school, given the significant distance between the parents’ homes, [ ] Child will obviously have to have primary custody with one of the parents during the school year. 4. [ ] Child does have significant sibling relationships with the Father’s girlfriend’s two children who live in Father’s home. 5. Both parties are capable of maintain a loving, stable and consistent and nurturing relationship with [ ] Child. 6. Father resides in Enola, Pennsylvania and Mother in New Kensington, Pennsylvania which is near Pittsburgh. Given this significant distance between the parents’ homes, minimizing exchanges will financially benefit both parties. 7. Both parties have shown their ability to provide for appropriate child care arrangements when they are working. 8. The level of conflict between Mother and Father is significant. They do not communicate well. Accordingly, having a set 50/50 schedule minimizes the amount of communication these parents have to have with each other.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. E.B. v. D.B. · 2016 Pa. Super. 40 - C.A.J. v. D.S.M.

2. “(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 nonrelocat-ing party arid’ 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 motivatio”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 123 - D.K.D. v. A.L.C. · D.K.D. v. A.L.C.

3. “Section 5323(d) provides that a trial court "shall delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a written opinion or order." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). Additionally, " section 5323(d) requires the trial court to set forth its mandatory assessment of the sixteen [ Section 5328(a) custody] factors prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal." C.B. v. J.B. , 65 A.3d 946 , 955 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied , 620 Pa. 727 , 70 A.3d 808 (2013).... In expressing the reasons for its decision, "there is no required amount of detail for the trial court's explanation; all that is required is that the enumerated factors are considered and that the custody decision is based on those considerations." M.J.M. v. M.L.G. , 63 A.3d 331 , 336 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied , [ 620 Pa. 710 ], 68 A.3d 909 (2013). A court's explanation of reasons for its decision, which adequately addresses the relevant factors, complies with Section 5323(d). Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. S.S. v. T.J.