A.J.Z. v. J.A.J.
A.J.Z. v. J.A.J. No. 2488 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Mother (J.A.J.) filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief re: custody in Montgomery County on June 28, 2016, asserting she and the child had been living in Montgomery County since 2013 and that she had primary physical custody under prior Philadelphia orders.
- Mother alleged Father had not resided in Philadelphia since 2012 and now lives in North Carolina; she asked Montgomery County to assume jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.2.
- Montgomery County dismissed the petition (July 6, 2016), holding Philadelphia County retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that only the Philadelphia court could decide that issue; the prothonotary was ordered to mark the case closed.
- Mother appealed; Montgomery County asked this Court to quash the appeal based on a separate per curiam quash of Mother’s appeal from a June 30, 2016 Philadelphia order. The Superior Court found that quash applied only to that separate appeal and not to the Montgomery County final order.
- The Superior Court concluded Montgomery County abused its discretion by dismissing without a hearing because Section 5422(a)(2) of the UCCJEA allows a non-original county to determine that the original county has lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when the child and parents no longer reside there. Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for a hearing within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery County erred by dismissing Mother’s emergency custody petition for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Mother: Philadelphia no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because child and parents reside outside Philadelphia; Montgomery may assume jurisdiction under §5422(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P.1915.2 | Montgomery/Philadelphia: only the court that entered the original custody order (Philadelphia) can determine whether it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; Montgomery must defer | Court held Montgomery abused its discretion by dismissing without a hearing; §5422(a)(2) permits another county to determine loss of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; vacated and remanded for hearing |
| Whether Montgomery erred by directing the prothonotary to close the registered Philadelphia custody docket and thus foreclosing enforcement in Montgomery | Mother: Even if jurisdiction transfer disputed, registered Philadelphia order in Montgomery can be enforced and docket should remain open for enforcement/relief | Montgomery: closure appropriate because it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to act due to Philadelphia’s asserted continuing jurisdiction | Court did not rule on this alternative argument (resolved claim dispositive); remanded for proceedings consistent with decision on jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreting Pa. R.C.P. 1915.2 and applying §5422 to intrastate venue questions; held original county lost exclusive continuing venue when parties no longer resided there)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (held a receiving county may assume jurisdiction even if the original forum has not formally relinquished jurisdiction)
- Lucas v. Lucas, 882 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- In re R.L.L.'s Estate, 409 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1979) (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from venue)