Scope. Pennsylvania revised its custody-factor statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328, through Act 11 of 2025 (House Bill 378), effective August 29, 2025. One year later, parents preparing a custody case need to understand both that reorganization and the safety protections that were already in place under 2024's Kayden's Law. This article explains the statutory framework and preparation considerations for Pennsylvania families. The facts of a particular family control any real case.
The short version
The familiar custody-factor list is shorter and reorganized. But Act 11 did not introduce special weight for safety: Kayden's Law had already established the four specified safety factors and their substantial weight in 2024. The current statute directs the court to determine the child's best interest “by considering all relevant factors, giving substantial weighted consideration to the factors specified under paragraphs (1), (2), (2.1) and (2.2) which affect the safety of the child”. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).
Three points matter when preparing a case:
- The four safety factors retain special weight. They address which party is more likely to ensure the child's safety; present and past abuse by a party or household member; the child-abuse and protective-services information identified in § 5329.1(a); and violent or assaultive behavior by a party. That weight matters, but it does not make an allegation conclusive or automatically decide the case.
- Act 11 combines cooperation and protective conduct in one provision. Factor (2.3) brings together continuing contact, cooperation and conflict, and attempts to turn the child against the other party. It carries forward and revises protections for reasonable safety efforts.
- The court must provide the list after specified filings. New subsection (d) requires the court to provide all named parties a copy of § 5328 within 30 days after receiving a custody complaint, petition to modify custody, or petition to intervene. It does not refer to every document filed in an existing case.
Custody remains an individualized best-interest decision. Section 5328(a.2) states: “No single factor under subsection (a) shall by itself be determinative in the awarding of custody.” The court must consider the totality of the circumstances while giving weighted consideration to safety. Section 5328(b) also prohibits preference based on gender.
What actually changed in 2025
The list is often called the sixteen-factor checklist, but additional numbered paragraphs had already been added before Act 11. The 2025 amendment consolidated several overlapping provisions and retained their statutory numbering, including gaps where paragraphs were deleted. The useful question is where an issue belongs in the current text.
- Cooperation, contact, and alienation concerns are together. Factor (2.3) now includes cooperation and conflict, safe continuing contact, and attempts to turn a child against the other party. Former paragraphs (8) and (13) were deleted as separate entries.
- Parental duties and care are considered together. Expanded factor (3) addresses willingness and ability to prioritize the child's needs, past and future parental duties, stability, and daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational, and special needs. Former paragraphs (9) and (10) are no longer separate entries.
- Sibling relationships remain explicit. Factor (6) now addresses siblings and other familial relationships. The former standalone extended-family-availability factor (5) was deleted; the sibling factor was not.
- Employment schedules are expressly identified. Factor (12) addresses each party's employment schedule, availability to care for the child, and ability to arrange appropriate childcare.
Other familiar considerations remain, including stability in education, family and community life; a well-reasoned child preference evaluated by developmental stage, maturity and judgment; proximity of the parties' homes; household drug or alcohol abuse; mental and physical condition; and other relevant factors. The reorganization does not make daily care, relationships, or practical arrangements irrelevant. See Act of June 30, 2025, P.L. 18, No. 11, § 1.
For the earlier safety reforms, including safety conditions and findings when abuse or risk is established, read Kayden's Law in Pennsylvania Child Custody & PFA Cases. Those reforms came from Act 8 of 2024; Act 11 revised the existing framework.
What the protective-actions language says
The current cooperation provision states:
“A party's good faith and reasonable effort to protect the safety of a child or self shall not be considered evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with the other party.”
The next sentence adds:
“A party's reasonable concerns for the safety of the child and the party's reasonable efforts to protect the child shall not be considered attempts to turn the child against the other party.”
23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(2.3)(ii). The same paragraph says a child's deficient or negative relationship with one party is not presumed to have been caused by the other party. These are meaningful protections, but much of their substance predates Act 11: Kayden's Law already protected reasonable safety concerns against an alienation characterization, and the earlier cooperation factor protected efforts to avoid abuse.
The wording does not give blanket permission to withhold a child or disregard a custody order. Good faith, reasonableness, the actual safety circumstances, and the existing order matter. Section 5328 addresses the custody-factor analysis; it does not automatically resolve whether a particular act violated an order. Willful noncompliance can raise a separate contempt issue under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(g). When protection requires a change in arrangements, seek prompt advice about appropriate court relief and preserve the reasons for the requested change.
What this means for how you prepare
A year into Act 11, preparation should follow the current provisions and the evidence relevant to them. Use the factors to organize the issues, supporting records, and proposed arrangements for your case.
- If safety is an issue, build a dated, specific record. Identify incidents, witnesses, reports, and relevant medical or school records. Explain the connection to the child and to the safety issue. Distinguish what a report alleges from what an agency or court actually determined. Our guide to preparing a Pennsylvania custody case discusses organizing the case.
- If safety is alleged against you, answer with specifics. Preserve dates, context, contrary records, and witnesses with personal knowledge. The weight assigned to safety does not eliminate the need to determine what happened or make every allegation true.
- If you acted to protect your child, document why. Record the information available to you, the steps you took, and why you believed those steps were reasonable. A contemporaneous record can help explain protective conduct; it does not guarantee that a court will accept the explanation.
- Prepare the daily-care evidence too. Parenting duties, work and childcare schedules, school needs, family relationships, and proposed arrangements remain relevant. Organize them under the current factors rather than relying on an outdated checklist.
- Read the list the court provides. Use it to identify issues and supporting evidence. It is not a numerical scorecard, and the party who appears to win the most factors does not automatically receive custody.
Act 11 does not itself revise an existing order. A modification proceeding brought now uses the current custody factors; an older proceeding or appeal from an earlier decision can require separate analysis of the applicable version of the statute.
Talk to a Northampton County custody lawyer
Madsen Law Offices handles custody conferences, hearings, and modifications across Northampton and Lehigh Counties from our office next to the Northampton County Courthouse. If your case involves disputed safety concerns, protective conduct, or a proposed change in custody, we can evaluate the record and help organize a plan.
Frequently asked questions
Did Pennsylvania really eliminate custody factors?
Act 11 consolidated and revised the list effective August 29, 2025. Cooperation, continuing contact, and concerns about turning a child against the other party are now grouped in factor (2.3); factor (3) combines parental duties and care; and factor (6) still expressly includes sibling relationships. Safety weighting already existed under Kayden's Law.
Does the new law favor mothers or fathers?
Neither. Section 5328(b) prohibits a preference based on gender. The four specified safety factors receive substantial weighted consideration, but the court must consider all relevant factors and the total circumstances. No single factor decides custody by itself.
Can withholding the child be held against me if I was protecting them?
The statute protects good-faith, reasonable safety efforts from being treated as noncooperation and protects reasonable child-safety concerns and efforts from being treated as attempts to turn the child against the other party. Those protections do not automatically excuse withholding custody or violating an existing order. Preserve the reasons for your actions and seek prompt advice about appropriate court relief.
Do the new factors apply to my existing custody order?
Act 11 does not itself change an existing custody order. A modification proceeding brought now uses the current custody factors. An older proceeding or an appeal from an earlier decision can require a separate analysis of which version of the statute applies.
Where do I see the actual list?
Read 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. Under subsection (d), the court must provide all parties named in a custody complaint, modification petition, or intervention petition with a copy of the section within 30 days after receiving that filing.
This article provides general information about Pennsylvania custody law. It is not advice for a particular family and does not promise a result. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.