Bisbing v. Bisbing

166 A.3d 1155 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married on August 27, 2005. Their twin daughters were born on November 17, 2006. The family lived near the parties' respective families in Pennsylvania. The children's grandmothers assisted with childcare while H and W worked. Both parties were employed outside of the home during the marriage. W and Glenn (H) divorced when their twin daughters were seven years old. They included a settlement agreement that W would be the parent of primary residence and H would be the parent of alternate residence. The Agreement included a provision addressing any future disputes regarding the relocation of the children: Relocation. The parties agree that each shall inform the other with respect to any change of residence concerning himself or herself or the said minor Children for the period of time wherein any provision contained in this Agreement remains unfulfilled. The parties represent that they both will make every effort to remain in close proximity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive from the other. Neither party shall permanently relocate with the Children from the State of New Jersey without the prior written consent of the other. Neither parent shall relocate intrastate further than 20 miles from the other party. In the event either party relocates more than 20 miles from the other party, the parties agree to return to mediation to review the custody arrangement. In the event a job would necessitate a move, the parties agree to discuss this together and neither will make a unilateral decision. Neither party shall travel with the minor children out of the United States without the prior written consent of the other party. Sometime prior to the entry of the judgment of divorce, W began dating Jake Fackrell, a Utah resident who operated a business in Idaho. The parties dispute whether W told H that her relationship with Fackrell was serious before H agreed that W would be designated as the parent of primary residence. W resigned from her employment and Fackrell had begun to support her financially. W brought the children to Utah for vacations and also began to restrict H’s access to the letter of the agreement. Several months after the parties' divorce, W advised H that she intended to marry the man whom she had been dating, a resident of Utah, and sought an order permitting her to move the children to that state. A parent with primary custody seeking to relocate children out of state over the objection of the other parent must demonstrate only that there is a good-faith reason for an interstate move and that the relocation 'will not be inimical to the child's interests.' The court found that W sought to relocate for a good-faith reason and that the relocation would not be inimical to the interests of the parties' daughters. The trial court authorized the relocation to Utah, conditioned on an agreement allowing H scheduled visitation and regular communication with his daughters following the move. H appealed, and the panel reversed the trial court's judgment. If H were to make a showing on remand that W had negotiated the parties' custody agreement in bad faith, the trial court should not apply the 'inimical to the child's interest' standard but should instead determine whether relocation would be in the best interests of the child. W appealed.