19 A.3d 1081
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Father was granted primary physical custody in 2009 and permitted to relocate with Child to Saipan.
- Mother resides in Oklahoma since 2004 and sought to transfer custody jurisdiction there in 2010.
- Father temporarily relocated to Canada for the birth of his child with S.H. and later moved with Child to Maryland.
- In September 2010, the trial court heard petitions to relocate custody to Maryland and to transfer jurisdiction to Oklahoma.
- The court transferred custody jurisdiction to Oklahoma; Father appealed.
- This court vacated the transfer order, dismissed the case, and relinquished Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction, ruling Pennsylvania no longer had exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in transferring jurisdiction. | Father contends Maryland has significant contacts and should control. | Mother argues Oklahoma is appropriate for stable jurisdiction and convenience. | No abuse; Pennsylvania lacks continuing jurisdiction; vacate and dismiss. |
| Whether Pennsylvania retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. | Father asserts PA should retain due to Child’s ties and evidence. | Mother contends PA no longer has significant connection or substantial evidence. | PA no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; PA relinquished jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA 5422)
- Grom v. Burgoon, 672 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 1996) (subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (de novo review for pure legal question of jurisdiction)