Michael E. Bertin

February 12, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

In what is becoming one of the hottest topics in Pennsylvania Child Custody Law, in loco parentis took center stage before the Superior Court in the recent case.

By Michael E. Bertin

8 minute read

December 18, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

With the evolution of same-sex marriage, the concerning issues that existed between same-sex couples in custody matters appeared to dissipate. However, in the recent case of C.G. v. J.H., the issue of standing in a child custody matter between same-sex partners has resurfaced and the result thereof has caused some concern.

By Michael E. Bertin

7 minute read

October 23, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

For many family law practitioners, 23 Pa.C.S. Section 3505(d) is a safety blanket protecting their clients in situations where a party fails to disclose information regarding an asset or assets with a fair market value of $1,000.00 or more which results in that asset or assets being omitted from the final distribution of property in a divorce matter.

By Michael E. Bertin

7 minute read

August 21, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Two of the most talked about ­issues among family law practitioners and the bench are child relocation cases and whether custody orders may be ­modified at contempt hearings. I've written numerous times on these issues.

By Michael E. Bertin

9 minute read

June 27, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Within the last five years, the issue of evidence outside of the record being considered by the trial court was raised in an appeal from a custody order in CMP v. MP, 54 A.3 950 (Pa. Super. 212)). Recently, the case of Johnson v. Johnson, 153 A.3 318 (Pa. Super. 2016), was decided and the vacating and remanding of the order was based on a similar reasoning.

By Michael E. Bertin

5 minute read

April 14, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The recent case of K.W. v. S.L. and M.L. v. G.G. addresses two important issues for family court practitioners and the bench to take note. First, it addresses the collateral order doctrine and then the issue of in loco parentis standing in child custody matters.

By Michael E. Bertin

15 minute read

February 13, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Pennsylvania, jurisdiction in child custody cases is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Jurisdiction in child custody cases is an issue that arises often and has been seen numerous times in appellate decisions.

By Michael E. Bertin

15 minute read

December 27, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Some of the more trying and difficult child custody cases are relocation cases. Prior to the custody act of 2011, relocation cases in Pennsylvania were governed by the case of Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990), and its progeny. The Gruber case provided a three-pronged analysis and was interpreted by numerous Superior Court cases to contain a trickle-down theory. The trickle-down theory, in essence, meant if the intended relocation was beneficial for the parent it would be deemed beneficial to the child. Upon the enactment of the new custody statute in 2011, the Gruber test was replaced with a 10-factor statutory analysis. One of the more interesting aspects of the 10-factor analysis in the custody act is the fact that it delineates, as two separate ­factors, the benefits of the proposed relocation to the relocating parent, and the benefits to the child independently of the benefits to the parent. The new custody act provided a glaring reminder that in all custody actions, regardless of whether it is a relocation case, the best interest of the child is paramount and an independent consideration and not merely something that flows to the child from the parent.

By Michael E. Bertin

16 minute read

December 19, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Some of the more trying and difficult child custody cases are relocation cases. Prior to the custody act of 2011, relocation cases in Pennsylvania were governed by the case of Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990), and its progeny. The Gruber case provided a three-pronged analysis and was interpreted by numerous Superior Court cases to contain a trickle-down theory. The trickle-down theory, in essence, meant if the intended relocation was beneficial for the parent it would be deemed beneficial to the child. Upon the enactment of the new custody statute in 2011, the Gruber test was replaced with a 10-factor statutory analysis. One of the more interesting aspects of the 10-factor analysis in the custody act is the fact that it delineates, as two separate ­factors, the benefits of the proposed relocation to the relocating parent, and the benefits to the child independently of the benefits to the parent. The new custody act provided a glaring reminder that in all custody actions, regardless of whether it is a relocation case, the best interest of the child is paramount and an independent consideration and not merely something that flows to the child from the parent.

By Michael E. Bertin

16 minute read

October 17, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

When a child is removed from or retained in a country that is not a child's habitual ­residence a parent can seek to have the child ­returned to their habitual residence country under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

By Michael E. Bertin

14 minute read