Background
A long-running Chester County custody dispute involved two parents and the children’s maternal grandparents. The grandparents had exercised substantial custody, while both parents faced concerns involving mental health, substance use, housing, or compliance with prior orders. The mother later sought to relocate the children to New Jersey, and the grandparents formally objected.
The trial court conducted a six-day custody hearing that included evidence about the proposed New Jersey home and schools. In February 2025, it issued a comprehensive interim order awarding the grandparents sole legal and primary physical custody and expressly denying relocation. The order contemplated a review hearing at least 90 days later, potentially addressing increases in the parents’ custodial time depending on evaluations and compliance.
The mother did not file a new relocation notice. The scheduling letter for the June review hearing said only that the matter was set for hearing and did not identify relocation as an issue. After that hearing, however, the court entered a July order gradually transferring primary custody to the mother, who lived in New Jersey. The order therefore allowed relocation in practical effect. The grandparents appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court vacated the July order and directed the trial court to make the February order final. Judge Stabile concluded that the grandparents were deprived of due process because they lacked notice that the court would revisit relocation. Pennsylvania’s Child Custody Act requires a relocating party to notify every person with custody rights. When a person objects, the court must hold a hearing and consider the statutory relocation factors, giving weighted consideration to factors affecting the children’s safety.
Those procedures had occurred for the original proposal, and they culminated in a denial. The review provision did not keep relocation silently open. It referred to possible increases in custodial time based on parental compliance, while the later scheduling notice gave no warning that the prior relocation ruling might be reversed. Without a new notice or a clear court directive, the grandparents could not reasonably prepare relocation evidence for the review hearing.
The panel treated the change to primary physical custody as an implicit relocation ruling because the mother resided out of state. A court cannot avoid Section 5337’s notice protections by changing custody in a way that produces the same result. The error affected the structure of the final order, so vacatur—not a limited correction—was required.
Key Takeaways
- A custody order may constitute relocation in substance even when it does not use that label.
- After a relocation request is denied, a general review hearing does not automatically reopen the issue.
- Every person with custody rights must receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to present relocation evidence.
- Hearing notices and interim orders should identify the issues that remain open for later adjudication.
Why It Matters
Henderson is important for Pennsylvania family-law practitioners because custody modification and relocation frequently overlap. Moving primary custody to an out-of-state parent may trigger the same statutory and constitutional protections as an express order approving a move. Substance controls over drafting labels.
Counsel should file a renewed relocation notice when a previously denied proposal returns and should object promptly if a review hearing expands beyond its stated scope. Judges can prevent reversal by spelling out whether relocation remains pending, ensuring that all custodial parties receive notice, and making a fresh record under Section 5337. Grandparents and other nonparent custodians are entitled to the same procedural notice when they hold custody rights. Though unreported, the opinion is a concrete warning that a best-interests determination cannot cure a process that denied a party the chance to litigate the decisive issue.