In child custody, further providing for award of custody, repealing provisions relating to relocation and providing for relocation.
HB1699 revises Pennsylvania’s child custody relocation rules in Title 23 of the Consolidated Statutes. The bill repeals the existing relocation section and replaces it with a new section that requires a relocating parent or other party to file a custody complaint or petition for relocation and modification before moving with a child, unless all parties with custody rights consent in writing. It also updates the notice and service requirements, including deadlines, required information about the proposed move, and warnings that failure to respond within the statutory period can forfeit the right to object.
The bill establishes an expedited court process for relocation disputes. If an objection is filed, the court must hold a prompt pretrial conference and, if needed, a full hearing on the relocation and custody issues. The court must evaluate a detailed list of best-interest factors, including the child’s relationship with each party, the impact on the child’s development, the feasibility of maintaining contact with the nonrelocating party, the reasons for the move, and any history of abuse. The relocating party bears the burden of proving the move is in the child’s best interest, and noncompliance with the statute can lead to sanctions, fee awards, return of the child, or contempt, subject to mitigation where abuse contributed to the failure to comply.
HB1699 would substantially rewrite Pennsylvania’s relocation procedure in custody cases by repealing current section 5337 and replacing it with new section 5337.1. It changes how relocation is initiated, served, contested, and adjudicated, and it amends the custody-order notice requirement to reference the new relocation section. The bill would affect parents, children, courts, and family-law practitioners by imposing new filing prerequisites, shorter objection timelines, and an expedited hearing framework, while preserving the court’s authority to decide relocation based on the child’s best interests.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for clearer procedure, faster adjudication, and stronger notice protections in relocation disputes, while also emphasizing child safety and continuity of custody relationships. The overall tone of the legislation is structured and procedural rather than ideological.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between a relocating party’s ability to move for work, family, safety, or educational reasons and the nonrelocating party’s ability to maintain custody and contact with the child. The bill’s shortened response deadlines, presumption of consent if no timely objection is filed, and penalties for noncompliance may be viewed as protective of orderly process by some and as potentially burdensome or unforgiving by others. Another likely area of dispute is the treatment of abuse-related exceptions, since the bill allows mitigation when notice or compliance failures are tied to abuse, which may raise questions about proof, fairness, and how courts should weigh safety against procedural defaults.