Michael Bertin Analyzes Superior Court Rules on Primary Physical Custody in Child Custody Matters

In an October 13, 2026, article for The Legal Intelligencer, Michael Bertin, partner and co-chair of Obermayer’s Family Law Group, analyzes how recent Pennsylvania appellate decisions reinforce the strict boundaries governing child custody alternative hearing procedures. In the article, titled “Superior Court Reexamines Whether Hearing Officers May Decide Primary Physical Custody in Child Custody Matters,” Bertin reviews the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Randazzo v. Passanita, 2026 Pa. Super. 183 (Aug. 12, 2026), which clarifies that a hearing officer cannot handle custody modifications that would effectively divest a parent of primary physical custody, even if the petition only explicitly requests a 50/50 shared arrangement, reinforcing the court’s 2025 ruling in McGee v. McDowell and the Supreme Court’s precedent in Van Dine v. Gyuriska (1998).

Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Van Dine v. Gyuriska (1998), hearing officers are strictly restricted to handling partial physical custody cases.

In the Randazzo case, a father petitioned for a 50/50 shared custody arrangement, which the trial court improperly assigned to a hearing officer despite the mother’s objections. The Superior Court determined that even if a petition asks for an equal split, it directly relates to primary custody because granting it would divest the mother of her established primary physical custody rights.

Additionally, the Superior Court clarified that a trial judge cannot cure an improper delegation simply by reviewing a “cold record” and hearing exceptions. Because the judge cannot directly perceive live witness testimony or evaluate credibility from a transcript, a thorough review of the hearing officer’s findings is legally insufficient. The Randazzo case serves as a critical reminder to practitioners and the bench that actions affecting primary physical custody remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of trial judges.

This case is an important reminder to practitioners and the bench that hearing officers shall only address issues of partial physical custody in child custody matters.

Read the full analysis at The Legal Intelligencer.