The case reported today is Herman v. Clark, a relocation case out of Delaware County. The child is 11 years old and has lived in a shared physical custody arrangement since 2017. In 2025 mother secured a job promotion premised upon her relocation to Greenwich CT. She filed to move. The father opposed. At a hearing the child testified over mother’s objection. Based in part on that testimony the relocation was denied and mom appealed. She suggested that the parties agreed the child should not testify and the court misinterpreted what the child said.

The case is kind of typical. Mom and Dad seem to be getting along but in 2025 Mom gets a promotion which means more money and more flexibility in her schedule if she moves to Connecticut. She is thrilled and assumes everyone will see the merit of the move.

Who wouldn’t be, right? This is waterfront Connecticut with all kinds of affluence. An hour from the Big Apple if you time it right. Schools are ranked #34 in the country. The trouble is that 11 year olds don’t study the data. Life in suburban Philadelphia with dad three miles away seems fine.

I have tried this kind of case. In mine both parents thought it was best to not immerse the kids in the conflict by testifying. The judge responded by saying that the law required her to consider any “well reasoned preference of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. 5328(a)(7). In the Herman case the same thing happened. The court pressed, the parties relented and the interview revealed a kid quite content with shared physical custody as is. That makes relocation highly unlikely to get court approval.

In my case, there were two kids 11 and 13. One was ready to pack and leave for central New Jersey instantly. The other was perfectly fine with the current arrangement. The judge’s response was: “Your clients can agree to split them apart but I’m not imposing it.” In the end, kids that age don’t know what they want. Many would say they want mom and dad back together because we live in a society  that promotes “Family is everything.”

Lots of well-meaning parents profess that they don’t try to influence custody decisions. But they also seem to ignore the fact that kids are listening to lots of conversations parents have with friends, family, employers and the like. “I would be thrilled to be offered the job in Connecticut. What a special opportunity to work at headquarters with senior management. Such a special place.” Kids hear that but they are not certain how it fits into their lives. They are poor at assessing compensation packages and school performance stats. They do understand life in suburban Philadelphia where Mom and Dad each provide three hots and a cot and where they have friends and family. If the child endorses the move, he/she is effectively renouncing the other parent. That’s a tough plank to walk.

Realize as well that when judges interview kids in these cases one of the prominent questions is: “What advantages do you see to moving to Connecticut?” If an 11 year old describes Mom’s comp package or the merits of the Greenwich schools, we know he’s been coached. The other question is: “How often would you want to travel to see your Dad?” Even 11 year olds know how loaded that question is.

Relocation is hard. Don’t expect your children to ease that pain. They truly are the monkeys in the middle of the conflict. And courts are mandated to inquire of the monkeys what they think of the experiments they may undergo in relocating.

The case: J-S33028-26m – 106976201379183975.pdf