B.L. v. T.B. and F.L.
828 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 13, 2016Background
- Children born in Texas to Father and Mother; lived in Texas until June 2013, then moved to Pennsylvania under a written guardianship agreement naming Guardian (Mother’s cousin) as primary caregiver until August 29, 2014 unless revoked earlier.
- In October 2013 Father obtained a Texas custody order designating him with the right to determine the children’s primary residence; Guardian received no notice and did not participate in the Texas proceedings.
- Guardian filed for custody in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania in July 2014; the case was continued repeatedly and eventually set for trial in January 2016.
- Father moved to dismiss in March 2016, arguing (1) Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction to modify the Texas order under the UCCJEA, and (2) Texas was a more convenient forum; the trial court granted dismissal on April 27, 2016.
- Guardian appealed, arguing the Texas order was invalid for lack of notice and because Texas was not the children’s home state, and that Pennsylvania could exercise jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA court could modify existing Texas custody order under UCCJEA | Guardian: Texas order is invalid or not entitled to continuing jurisdiction; PA may modify | Father: Texas made an initial custody determination and retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; PA cannot modify | Held: PA lacked authority to modify because Texas retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and had not declined jurisdiction |
| Whether Texas had initial jurisdiction in Oct 2013 | Guardian: Children had been living in PA since June 2013, so Texas was not the home state | Father: Children had lived in Texas within six months before filing and parents continued to reside in Texas, satisfying Texas UCCJEA | Held: Texas had initial jurisdiction under Tex. Fam. Code because Texas was home state within six months and parents lived in Texas |
| Whether the guardianship in PA was temporary for home-state analysis | Guardian: Agreement could continue past Aug 29, 2014; not necessarily temporary | Father/Trial Ct: Agreement set a termination date and was temporary, so children’s absence from Texas was temporary | Held: Agreement was temporary (explicit end date); absence from Texas counted as temporary for home-state determination |
| Whether Guardian’s lack of notice to Texas invalidates Texas court’s exclusive jurisdiction | Guardian: She had no notice or chance to be heard, so Texas order is void or unenforceable here | Father: No record that any Texas court declared its order void or relinquished jurisdiction; lack of Guardian’s participation does not change UCCJEA jurisdictional rules here | Held: Even if equitable complaints exist, jurisdiction rests with Texas unless that forum declines or relinquishes jurisdiction; Guardian must raise defects in Texas court |
Key Cases Cited
- S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction is de novo)
- M.E.V. v. R.D.V., 57 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. 2012) (temporary absence counts toward prior home-state residency)
- R.M. v. J.S., 20 A.3d 496 (Pa. Super. 2011) (child considered to have lived in prior state during contemplated temporary absence)
- T.A.M. v. S.L.M., 104 A.3d 30 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Pennsylvania may modify out-of-state order only when no parent or person acting as parent resides in the issuing state)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 889 A.2d 92 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate courts may affirm on any proper basis supporting the result)