When a child has continued to reside for many years in the same location the Court may view this situation as controlling.
The removal of a young child from his environment is a factor which bears on its emotional well-being. Therefore, continued residence of children with one parent may be controlling.
The children for most of their lives, and for most of the time since the parties separated, were under the mother’s care. The original Court interviewed the children and the Court was impressed with them. The Court stated: “They are both charming and lovable children.” (N.T. 4-66). The Court stated that they were likewise comfortable with the parenting skills and demeanor of the father. However, the Court felt that since the children were clearly benefitting from a living arrangement that had become their usual practice, that changing it made no sense. The Court seemingly felt that there was no reason to change a good thing. The lower Court discussed at length the arguments of the father and did not discount them, they simply felt that a long term living arrangement had already been reached and that none of the arguments provided by the father were strong enough to change a situation that so obviously benefitted the children.
This court has long recognized that the removal of a young child from his environment is a factor which bears on its emotional well-being. In re Custody of Phillips, 260 Pa.Superior Ct. 402, 408, 394 A.2d 989, 992 (1978), Commonwealth ex rel. Children’s Aid Society v. Gard, 362 Pa. 85, 97, 66 A.2d 300, 306 (1949). Therefore, continued residence of children with one parent may be controlling. Commonwealth ex rel. Children’s Aid Society v. Gard, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Cutler v. Cutler, 246 Pa.Superior Ct. 82, 88, 369 A.2d 821, 824 (1977). Commonwealth ex rel. Kraus v. Kraus, 185 Pa.Superior Ct. 167, 138 A.2d 225 (1958).
The take away here is that clearly as is always the case, the best interests of the children are the lodestone of any decision. Moreover, if a living arrangement has been reached that clearly results in the children thriving, the Court is loath to make changes, especially if those changes could result in a potential negative result for the children. Establishing beneficial patterns is important.