Michael E. Bertin of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel. Courtesy photo Superior Court Reiterates That 'Gruber' Case Has Been Superseded by Custody Act
In discussing Gruber, the Superior Court, in Carrero, stated: "the idea was, if the relocation benefited the relocating custodial parent, then the parent's benefit would automatically 'flow to the children.'" There was also a line of cases that did not subscribe to the "trickle down" "flow to the children" theory, but the majority of the relocation cases that existed post-Gruber subscribed to the "trickle down" "flow to the children" theory.
August 14, 2023 at 09:12 AM
6 minute read
In 2016, the case of DKD v. ALC, 141 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. 2016) was decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court and appeared to drive the final nail in the coffin of the relocation analysis set forth in the case of Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990). However, the recent case of Carrero v. Lopez, 2023 Pa. Super. 140 (July 28, 2023) provides the exclamation mark to the death of the Gruber case.. Relocation cases are some of the most difficult and emotional child custody cases. Prior to the Custody Act of 2011, relocation cases in Pennsylvania were governed by Gruber and its progeny. The Gruber case provided a three-pronged analysis. Essential to the analysis was the interpretation that the parent seeking relocation was not required to show an independent benefit to the children apart from a substantial improvement in the relocating parent's quality of life. In discussing Gruber, the Superior Court, in Carrero, stated: "the idea was, if the relocation benefited the relocating custodial parent, then the parent's benefit would automatically 'flow to the children.'" There was also a line of cases that did not subscribe to the "trickle down" "flow to the children" theory, but the majority of the relocation cases that existed post-Gruber subscribed to the "trickle down" "flow to the children" theory.
The beauty of the relocation section of the Custody Act of 2011 is that it sounded the death knell for the "trickle down" "flow to the child" theory by including an independent factor that the court must consider "whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Defendant in Protection From Abuse Case Has Standing to File for Contempt
6 minute read
$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute read
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
- 2Whether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
- 3Am Law 200 Firms Announce Wave of D.C. Hires in White-Collar, Antitrust, Litigation Practices
- 4K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
- 5'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
