B.L. v. T.B.
152 A.3d 1014
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Children born in Texas to Father and Mother; in June 2013 they went to Pennsylvania under a written guardianship placing them with Guardian (a maternal cousin) until August 29, 2014 unless revoked or court-ordered earlier.
- In October 2013 Father obtained a Texas custody order awarding custody to him and authorizing him to designate the children’s primary residence; Guardian was not notified and did not participate in the Texas proceedings.
- Guardian filed a custody complaint in Schuylkill County, PA in July 2014; litigation proceeded with scheduling, postponements, and an attempted stipulation; trial was ultimately set for January 2016.
- Father moved (March 2016) to dismiss the Pennsylvania action, arguing the Texas order deprived the Pennsylvania court of jurisdiction or that Texas was the more convenient forum; the trial court granted dismissal on April 27, 2016.
- Guardian appealed, arguing lack of notice to her in the Texas action, that Texas was not the children’s home state in October 2013, and that Texas lacks exclusive continuing jurisdiction; the Pennsylvania court reviewed jurisdiction de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA court could modify the Texas custody order under the UCCJEA | Texas order invalid for lack of notice to Guardian; PA is appropriate forum | Texas made an initial custody determination and retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction | PA court lacked authority to modify because home-state Texas had not declined jurisdiction and neither §5423(1) nor (2) applied |
| Whether Texas had initial jurisdiction in Oct 2013 | Texas was not home state because children had been in PA since June 2013 | Texas was home state within six months before the Texas filing and parents remained in TX | Texas had initial jurisdiction: children lived in TX prior to the temporary guardianship and parents remained in TX |
| Whether Texas retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction now | Children have little connection to TX after long absence; substantial evidence no longer in TX | Only a Texas court can make the factual finding that it no longer has significant connections or available evidence | Texas retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction absent a Texas court’s determination otherwise; no such Texas finding in the record |
| Whether PA could exercise initial jurisdiction if Texas order were void | If Texas order is a nullity, PA could make an initial determination | Even if Texas order were void, PA is not the children’s home state and §5421 limits PA’s jurisdiction | PA lacked basis for initial jurisdiction because Texas was the children’s home state (temporary absence counted) and Texas had not declined jurisdiction |
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)
- B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- T.A.M. v. S.L.M., 104 A.3d 30 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PA had jurisdiction to modify where child and no parent resided in original state)
- M.E.V. v. B.D.V., 57 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. 2012) (absence from prior state is temporary when return was contemplated)
- R.M. v. J.S., 20 A.3d 496 (Pa. Super. 2011) (temporary absence counts toward home-state determination)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 889 A.2d 92 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court may affirm on any proper basis supporting the result)