Fox v. Garzilli
Decision Date | 13 May 2005 |
Citation | 875 A.2d 1104 |
Parties | Janice Marie FOX, Appellant, v. Robert Francis GARZILLI, Appellee, |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Joseph S. Britton, Langhorn, for appellant.
Robert F. Garzilli, appellee (pro se) (no brief filed).
Before: LALLY-GREEN, BOWES and KELLY, JJ.
OPINION BY BOWES, J.:
¶ 1 This is an appeal by Janice Fox ("Mother") from the June 11, 2004 order of the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas denying her request to modify a custody order insofar as it provided that the parties' children should attend school in Pennsbury School District, where Appellee Robert Garzilli ("Father")1 resides, rather than Council Rock School District, where Mother currently resides. We are constrained to reverse.
¶ 2 The parties separated in October 2001 and entered into an agreed custody order on November 26, 2002, concerning their children, Olivia, born July 7, 1995, and Lara, born March 3, 1997. That order, which was dictated during a hearing, provided, in relevant part:
Order, 11/26/02; N.T., 11/26/02, at 2, 8-9 (emphasis added). In addition to shared legal custody, Mother has physical custody Sunday through Thursday each week until the last week of each month when she additionally has custody for the weekend. Father has physical custody three weekends each month from Thursday evening until Sunday; the fourth week he has custody overnight, Thursday evening until Friday.
¶ 3 When the custody agreement was entered, the parties had not resolved equitable distribution issues. Mother did not know where she ultimately would reside because that decision depended upon her financial situation following equitable distribution. She therefore agreed to allow the children to attend school where the marital home was located for the balance of that school year. Once the economic issues were settled, Mother obtained a residence, and since the children resided primarily with her, she sought to have them change schools to the district where she had relocated. The parties live one and one-half miles from each other. Thus, on February 25, 2004, Mother filed a petition to modify the custody order insofar as it dictated where the children would attend school.
¶ 4 The court held a hearing on June 11, 2004, and found that both school districts provide a superior education. The record supports that conclusion. Although the students in Mother's district appear to score higher in most areas that typically are assessed, the differences are extremely slight. N.T., 6/11/04, at 44-45. The trial court noted:
Trial Court Opinion, 8/30/04, at 4-5. The trial court ultimately refused to permit the children to transfer to the school district in which they reside with Mother.
¶ 5 Mother raises the following issues:2
Mother's brief at 3.
¶ 6 Our standard and scope of review is well settled. In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 202, 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992); T.B. v. L.R.M., 2005 PA Super 114. "As with initial custody determinations, appellate review of modification orders is broad." Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa.Super.2004). Moreover:
Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931, 936 (Pa.Super.2004).
¶ 7 We find merit in Mother's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the change of school districts. Mother first seeks application of the primary caretaker doctrine, which states that when both parents are otherwise fit, one parent's role as the child's primary caretaker may be given weight as a determining factor by the court in deciding primary custody. Mumma v. Mumma, 380 Pa.Super. 18, 550 A.2d 1341 (1988). The instant matter does not involve a determination of primary custody, thereby rendering inapplicable the primary caretaker doctrine. However, since Mother has physical custody the majority of the time, we agree that the trial court should have given that factor weight when determining where the children should attend school.
¶ 8 We also are persuaded that, in refusing to permit the transfer of the children to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Draper v. Darby Twp. Police Dep't
...courts have “interpreted the phrase ‘without prejudice’ as importing the contemplation of further proceedings.” Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104, 1108 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) (internal quotation omitted). As a result, “when this phrase appears in a decree it shows that the judicial act done is not......
-
T.T.H. v. P.L.K., J-A05031-21
...impasse. [See, e.g., Staub v. Staub], 960 A.2d 848 (Pa.Super. 2008) (deciding between public and home schooling); [Fox v. Garzilli], 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa.Super. 2005) (ordering that children would attend school in mother's school district); [Dolan v. Dolan], 378 Pa. Super. 321, 548 A.2d 632 (1......
-
Strader v. U.S. Bank Nat'Lass'N
...344, 350 (1942). In other words, a dismissal withoutprejudice is not a final judgment for purposes of preclusion. Id.; Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2005). Thus, the Court denies Defendants' Motion with respect to issue preclusion. c. Abstention Doctrines Defendants argue the Y......
-
V.B. v. J.E.B.
...466 (Pa.Super.2006) (conclusions on which trial court based its award of primary physical custody were unreasonable); Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa.Super.2005) (trial court's evaluation of and weight attributed to relevant factors regarding school attendance was unreasonable); Landis v......
-
Superior Court Clarifies When Custody Factors Must Be Evaluated
...as cases which did not involve changing the form of the custodial arrangement. See, Staub, 960 A.2d 848 (Pa.S. 2008); Fox v. Garzilla, 875 A.2d 1104(Pa.S. 2005); Dolan, 548 A.2d 632 (Pa. S. The Court notes that the 16 factors may become relevant in any custody decision and that both the fac......