Thomas Petrelli Child Custody Law Blog on Lawyers.com

The quality of time spent with ones child is a motivating factor for Pennsylvania courts when determining which parents should be awarded primary physical custody.  According to a recent Superior Court case, Gianvito v. Gianvito, (2009 PA Super 1008), the Primary Caretaker doctrine emphasizes the quality and quantity of time spent with the child rather than simply the daily care of the child.  What does this mean for the current case law?  It is now inaccurate to assume that the primary caretaker of the child will always prevail in a custody case and the Primary Caretaker doctrine will not always yield in a parent retaining primary custody over the child.  This is not to ignore that considerable weight is still given to parent as caretaker.  Rather, one should be aware that this will not guarantee a parent will retain physical custody as a result of the hearing.  

In the recent Gianvito case, the non-custodial parent (father) succeeded in obtaining primary physical custody even though it was established by the court that the custodial parent (the mother) was a fit and loving parent to the child. Apparently, in this case, the negative attributes of one parent were not reinforced or used against the other parent.  There was no issue regarding the suitability or love of either parent, and yet, significant custodial change was rendered by the court. Motivating the Court was the child’s interest and the prevailing party’s act in making the child the most important aspect of his life. For example, the Court placed significant emphasis on such factors as the father changing his work schedule to spend more time with his child and be more readily available, his purchasing a home close to the child, and his efforts to take an active role in the child’s daily activities. 

The mother’s attributes were also recognized and were not belittled by the Court.  However, the Court found that the father made greater efforts to make the child a primary aspect of his life, thereby giving him primary, physical custody.  The child was made a priority by the father, despite the fact that it made his life more inconvenient and that he had to make significant changes.  In a nutshell, the quality of time the father spent with the child prevailed over the quantity of time the mother spent with the child.  The lesson that can  be derived from this case is that providing the basic necessities for a child is not always enough to maintain primary, physical custody.  A parent’s sacrifice and struggle made for the sake of spending more time with the child can be pivotal to a court's opinion when analyzing the Primary Caretaker Doctrine.