Background
A long-running Chester County custody dispute involved two children, their parents, and their maternal grandparents. After a six-day trial, the court entered a February 2025 interim order that denied the mother’s request to relocate with the children to New Jersey. The order also scheduled a later review hearing that could address increases in the parents’ custodial time based on evaluations and compliance with other conditions.
The mother did not file a new notice of proposed relocation. The scheduling letter for the June review hearing likewise did not say relocation would be reconsidered. Nevertheless, the court entered a July order giving the mother primary physical custody. Because she lived in New Jersey, the new arrangement effectively approved the relocation that the February order had denied.
The maternal grandparents, who possessed custody rights and had objected to relocation, appealed. They argued that neither the mother nor the court warned them that the review hearing could reverse the relocation ruling, leaving them unable to prepare evidence and argument under Pennsylvania’s Child Custody Act.
The Court’s Holding
In a precedential opinion, the Superior Court vacated the July custody order. Judge Stabile explained that procedural due process requires adequate notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a fair tribunal before protected custody rights are altered. The relocation statute reinforces those requirements by directing a parent proposing relocation to notify every person who has custody rights.
The earlier trial had properly placed relocation at issue, and the February opinion comprehensively analyzed the statutory relocation factors before denying the request. But the limited review provision in that order referred only to possible increases in parental custodial time. It did not preserve relocation as an open issue. Nor did the generic hearing notice alert the grandparents that the court might permit the children to move out of state.
Granting primary custody to a parent residing in New Jersey implicitly authorized relocation. Because no relocation notice was pending and the grandparents lacked fair notice, the procedure violated due process. The panel remanded with instructions to make the February order final rather than conducting a new, unannounced reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- A custody review hearing does not automatically reopen a previously denied relocation request.
- Every person holding custody rights must receive notice that relocation will be considered.
- A custody arrangement can constitute implicit relocation even if the order does not use that label.
- Generic scheduling language is insufficient when the court may revisit a major issue requiring statutory-factor evidence.
Why It Matters
Henderson gives Pennsylvania family-law practitioners a firm notice rule. When a proposed custodial schedule would move the child’s principal residence, counsel should treat relocation as a distinct statutory issue, provide formal notice, identify objectors, and build a record on the relocation factors. A court cannot achieve indirectly through a custody allocation what due process would bar directly.
The ruling also cautions trial courts to define the scope of review hearings precisely. A reservation concerning expanded custodial time should say whether geography and relocation remain open. Parties relying on an earlier denial must be told clearly if that determination may change, particularly where grandparents or other nonparents possess legally recognized custody rights.