16 Custody Factors in PA: Safety, Stability, and the Child’s Voice

When a Pennsylvania judge decides custody, the analysis runs through a specific checklist written into 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. The custody factors in PA are numbered (1) through (16) in the statute, but amendments have deleted some originals and added three new ones, leaving 14 active factors the court must weigh. Four of them concern child safety, and the law tells the judge to give those four substantial weighted consideration above the rest. Every factor points at the same question: what arrangement serves the best interest of this child?¹

The Four Safety Factors the Court Weighs Most

The statute pulls four factors out of the list and tells the judge to give them extra weight before anything else.¹

Factor 1 — which parent better ensures safety. This is the threshold question. Who provides a physically safe home, appropriate supervision, and a living situation free from danger?

Factor 2 — present and past abuse. The court examines abuse by a parent or anyone in that parent’s household, whether directed at the child, the other parent, or someone else. Protection-from-abuse orders that include a finding of abuse and criminal convictions both count as evidence.

Factor 2.1 — child protective services history. Added by amendment. The court reviews any information tied to a parent’s history with CPS, including indicated or founded reports of child abuse.

Factor 2.2 — violent or assaultive behavior. Also added by amendment. This reaches beyond domestic abuse and asks whether a parent has a broader pattern of violent conduct.

These four can shape the whole case. A documented history of abuse or violence is a steep climb, and strength on the remaining factors will not simply cancel it.

Cooperation and Willingness to Support the Other Relationship

Factor 2.3 has two parts. The first asks which parent is more likely to encourage frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, as long as that contact is consistent with the child’s safety. Flexible scheduling, respectful communication, and no gatekeeping earn credit. Canceling visits, screening phone calls, and inventing obstacles do not.¹

The second part asks whether a parent has tried to turn the child against the other parent. The statute has two guardrails here: a parent’s reasonable effort to protect the child or themselves from harm cannot be treated as evidence of alienation, and a poor parent-child relationship cannot be automatically blamed on the other parent. Legitimate safety measures are not evidence of bad faith.

Each Parent’s Ability to Meet Daily Needs

Several factors ask, in different ways, whether a parent can actually run a child’s life.

Parental Duties, Past and Future (Factor 3)

This is the broadest fitness factor. The court looks at each parent’s willingness and ability to provide appropriate care, stability, and continuity by examining which parental duties that person performed in the past and whether they will keep performing them. Who handled meals, bedtime, homework, doctor visits, and school communication? The factor also asks who is more likely to attend to the child’s daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational, and special needs going forward.¹ A parent who knows the teacher’s name, the medication dosage, and the best friend has a natural advantage over one who learns those details from the other parent.

Work Schedule and Childcare (Factor 12)

The court reviews each parent’s employment schedule and whether they are available to care for the child or can arrange suitable childcare when they cannot. Travel-heavy jobs, night shifts, and unpredictable hours all count. Working long hours is not itself a problem. Not having a realistic plan for supervision during those hours is.¹

Drug or Alcohol Abuse (Factor 14)

The court examines any history of drug or alcohol abuse by a parent or a member of the parent’s household. A documented pattern is among the most damaging facts in a custody case because it goes directly to safety and stability. Completed treatment and sustained sobriety help, but the judge looks at the full history.¹

Mental and Physical Health (Factor 15)

The mental and physical condition of a parent or household member matters only to the extent it affects the ability to care for the child. A diagnosis alone is not disqualifying. What matters is whether the condition impairs day-to-day parenting or creates a risk to the child.¹

Stability, Family Ties, and the Child’s Own Voice

Stability and Continuity (Factor 4)

Courts want a child’s life to stay as consistent as possible. The judge looks at whether a proposed arrangement would disrupt the child’s current school, friendships, extracurriculars, and community ties. The exception is written into the statute: disruption is justified when needed to protect the safety of the child or a parent.¹

Sibling and Family Relationships (Factor 6)

The child’s relationships with siblings and other family members are treated as one factor. Courts generally avoid separating siblings and favor arrangements that keep them together or in frequent contact. “Other familial relationships” reaches grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins whose involvement is meaningful to the child.¹

The Child’s Preference (Factor 7)

The court may consider what the child wants, but only if the preference is well-reasoned based on the child’s developmental stage, maturity, and judgment. No magic age makes a preference controlling. A teenager who can articulate a thoughtful reason for wanting to live primarily with one parent carries more weight than a younger child who prefers whichever parent has looser rules or a bigger television.¹

Proximity of the Parents’ Homes (Factor 11)

How close the parents live to each other matters for practical reasons. When both live in the same school district or a short drive apart, shared schedules work without wrecking the child’s routine. A parent an hour away is not automatically at a disadvantage, but midweek overnights and school transportation get harder.¹

Any Other Relevant Factor (Factor 16)

The last factor is a catch-all. It lets the judge consider anything unique to the family that the other factors don’t reach: a strong attachment to a particular home, a parent’s plan to remarry, or any other circumstance that genuinely affects the child’s welfare.¹

How Judges Actually Weigh the Factors

There is no scoring system. The analysis is holistic. The judge looks at how the factors relate to one another and what the full picture says about the child’s welfare. Safety factors carry the heaviest weight by statute. Outside the safety group, no single factor automatically overrides the others.

Pennsylvania law requires the judge to state the reasoning on the record, either in open court or in a written opinion.² That requirement blocks arbitrary decisions and gives a parent a record to appeal from if they think the court misapplied the law.

In contested cases the court may bring in professionals. A Guardian ad Litem represents the child’s interests, investigates independently, and makes recommendations. A custody evaluator interviews both parents and the child, observes interactions, reviews school and medical records, and submits a report. Both inform the judge. The judge still decides.

What the Court Can Order After Weighing the Factors

Once the analysis is done, the judge can enter any combination of the following:²

Shared physical custody, with the child living with both parents for significant periods.
Primary physical custody, with the child living mostly with one parent and partial time with the other.
Partial physical custody, the right to have the child for less than a majority of the time.
Sole physical custody, with the child in one parent’s care at all times.
Supervised physical custody, where a third party or agency oversees a parent’s time when safety concerns exist.
Shared legal custody, with both parents sharing decisions about education, medical care, and religion.
Sole legal custody, giving one parent exclusive decision-making authority.

Physical custody (where the child lives) and legal custody (who makes the big decisions) are separate. A judge can pair shared legal custody with primary physical custody, or any other combination that fits the situation.

When the Factors Get Applied Again

A custody order isn’t the last word. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5338, either parent can petition for a modification when a change would serve the child’s best interest, and the court simply applies the § 5328 factors to the current situation. Pennsylvania’s statute does not expressly require proof of a substantial change in circumstances, which is a lower bar than many other states set.³ Common triggers are a new work schedule, a parent’s relocation, the child’s changing needs, or new safety concerns like substance abuse or domestic violence.

Relocation has its own rulebook at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337. When a move would significantly affect the other parent’s custodial time, it cannot happen without the consent of every person with custody rights or court approval, and the statute layers on ten relocation-specific factors that overlap with but are distinct from the § 5328 list.⁴ If a move is on the table, the § 5328 factors are not the whole story.

And once an order is in place, willful disobedience can be treated as contempt under § 5323(g), with real penalties including jail time, fines, probation, driver’s license consequences, and attorney fees.² Late returns, missed exchanges, and unilateral changes to the pickup location can accumulate into a contempt finding that reshapes the arrangement the factors originally produced.

1
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 53 – Section 5328
2
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 53 – Section 5323
3
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 53 – Section 5338
4
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 53 – Section 5337