Court determines no evidence a one-year-old could bond with father..

'The court determined that there was no evidence that a one-year-old child
could bond with a father...'
September 18th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks
"The Superior Court had some horrifying things to say...the court determined
that there was no evidence that a one-year-old child could bond with a
Father, and stated that 'using bonding as the reason for denying relocation
for [a one-year-old child] sends a message that relocation for a child this
age can never be an available option.'"

Reader Garrett Luttrell, a paralegal, recently wrote me a summary of the
Pennsylvania move-away case Landis v. Landis (869 A.2d 1003, Pa.Super.
2005).

How could anybody with say with a straight face that a 1-year-old can't bond
with his or her father? My daughter and I were extremely close long before
she turned 1...

Luttrell's synopsis of the case is below.

The lower court determined that Mother would have sole legal custody, and
physical custody would be a 'three-day/two-day alternating two-week schedule'.
The lower court also denied Mother's request to move 300 miles from the
marital home. The appellate court reversed the order, and remanded the case
back to the lower court.

The parents were married in '99, but in '03, Mother filed for a PFA,
claiming that Father had told her that he had 'thoughts about killing her',
which led to a divorce - she requested joint legal and primary physical
custody, as well as a request for relocation. As a result of the PFA
filing, Father consented to a PFA being issued, resulting in his removal
from his child, his home and the loss of his job as a mobile therapist, and
a prohibition against Father contacting Mother for 18 months, despite a PFA
court finding that no abuse occurred. Part of the reason for this was that
Father bought and sold weapons on e-Bay.

Mother stated that she had to leave the area because the home was being
foreclosed on, and that she was going to lose her job due to the many
appearances in court for the PFA hearings. She also argued that, if she
were allowed to move, she would have a new job as well as the support of her
family. Mother agreed to drive half of the 300 mile distance to Father's
residence during custody exchanges. Father stated that his new one-bedroom
apartment, his flexible hours, the PFA court finding of 'no abuse', and
Mother's desire for a strong relationship between Father and the child were
all excellent reasons for liberal visitation.

A family psychiatrist testified that both parents interacted well with the
child, and that both parents had bonded closely with the child. The
psychiatrist viewed the entire record of all relevant cases, including
photographs of Mother's bruises, but indicated that no finding of abuse had
occurred, and that he found no reason to disagree with that determination.

Finally, the psychiatrist stated that he was not convinced that a
relocation would be in the child's best interests, and he recommended joint
custody because of the unique and important contributions that both parents
made to the child, and that phone calls and letters from Father would not be
enough.

The lower court - while concerned about Father's preoccupation with buying
and selling weapons - did not find any problems with Mother or Father's
ability to parent, and found that, while they were together, both parents
cared for the child equally.

The Court then criticized Father for pleading guilty to a PFA and a
contempt charge, though he was clearly not guilty, and chastised both
parents for being uncooperative with each other in regards to custody.
Then, the Court determined that, according to law, Father had abused Mother
(even though a PFA court found him not guilty) because he agreed to the plea
bargain, so since Father was guilty but denied it, his testimony was
untrustworthy.

The Court then found that Mother was unlikely to 'foster a relationship'
between Father and the child, and went on to say that Mother was also
untrustworthy, and Father was unlikely to foster a relationship between
Mother and the child, finally ruling against Mother's relocation because of
the damage to the relationship between Father and the child.

Leaving out the complicated and incredibly verbose legal analysis for
relocation cases (seriously, you don't want me to get in to this), the
Superior Court had some horrifying things to say. The Superior Court [S.C.]
admonished the lower court for focusing "on the bonding issue almost to the
exclusion of any other evidence presented by the parties."

Worse, the court determined that there was no evidence that a one-year-old
child could bond with a Father, and stated that "using bonding as the reason
for denying relocation for [a one-year-old child] sends a message that
relocation for a child this age can never be an available option." Further,
the S.C. was miffed that the lower court was more concerned over the child's
bonding time with Father than with the benefit of relocation to Mother (and
the indirect benefit to the child).

The damning quotes:

"Here, it appears that the court began with the idea that a child of
P.G.L.'s age cannot be separated from his father to the extent that would be
required if the relocation was granted." . "Based upon the above discussion,
we conclude that concerning the relocation the trial court misapplied the
law and fashioned conclusions that are manifestly unreasonable in light of
the evidence presented." The S.C. reversed the order.