to the parent who has been the primary caregiver); Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844, 851 (Pa.Super.1998) (reiterating that one parent’s role as the child’s primary caregiver may be the determining factor in a custody determination). ¶ 28 The trial court indicated that Mother’s role as the primary caregiver was “not a factor that greatly influence[d] our decision” because of the ages of the children. (N.T., 5/11/05, at 14). We find no support in the case law for this rationale. The ages of the three children at the time of the custody/relocation hearing were sixteen (16), thirteen (13), and five (5) years, respectively. This Court has applied the primary caregiver doctrine as a relevant factor in custody disputes for children well past very early childhood. See, e.g., Johns, supra at 940 (<HOLDING>); Wheeler v. Mazur, 798 A.2d 929, 935
holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow questions regarding victims status as a child holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to order child support retroactive to date of filing where there was no evidence that husband was unable to pay the ordered amount during that period of time holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that the trial court abused its discretion in giving virtually no consideration to the mothers historical role as primary caregiver in a custodyrelocation order regarding a twelve 12 yearold child holding in modification suit in which no enforcement was ordered that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support under the necessaries rule