H.D. v. D.O.
H.D. v. D.O. No. 3578 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 19, 2017Background
- Parents share a seven-year-old son who resides with Mother in Anchorage, Alaska; Father lives in Yeadon, Pennsylvania. Child spent summers with Father in 2014 and 2015; Father did not return Child to Alaska in August 2015.
- Mother filed a custody complaint in Alaska on September 21, 2015; Alaska issued interim custody to Mother and scheduled further hearings.
- Father filed a custody action in Delaware County (Pennsylvania) in March 2016. The Delaware trial court initially denied relief because an Alaska action was pending.
- Father sought emergency relief and reconsideration in Pennsylvania, arguing Pennsylvania should exercise emergency or general jurisdiction (contending Alaska was not the child’s home state at filing, concern about alleged abuse in Mother’s household, and service defects in Alaska).
- At the Pennsylvania hearing Father presented argument but no evidence of imminent danger to Child; Mother testified (by phone) about her husband’s prior bipolar diagnosis and a short-lived protection order; no proof of current emergency was offered.
- The trial court dismissed Father’s Pennsylvania complaint under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5426(a) (prior pending proceeding) and declined to exercise emergency jurisdiction under § 5424(a); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA court should exercise emergency jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5424(a) | PA should enter temporary emergency order to protect Child due to alleged danger in Mother’s household | Alaska has pending custody proceedings; Father failed to show emergency or imminent danger | Court declined to exercise emergency jurisdiction; Father presented no evidence of necessity for emergency relief |
| Whether PA had general/initial jurisdiction instead of Alaska | Alaska wasn’t home state when Alaska petition docketed; parents agreed Child would reside in PA; Alaska service was insufficient | Alaska had already commenced proceedings and exercised jurisdiction | Court found PA lacked jurisdiction under § 5426(a) because Alaska proceedings were pending; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether due process rights were violated by Alaska and thereby PA via UCCJEA application | Father alleged denial of due process in Alaska’s handling and in interstate administration of UCCJEA | Mother relied on existence of Alaska proceedings and their interim orders | Court rejected Father’s arguments; jurisdictional rules and pending Alaska action controlled |
| Whether Mother failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1915.3-2 re: disclosure of criminal/abuse history, prejudicing Child’s safety | Father argued Mother benefited by not filing required verifications about household members, concealing danger | Mother pointed to Alaska orders and her testimony about protective measures; no evidence of ongoing risk presented | Court found no basis to override UCCJEA jurisdictional bar; no emergency evidence shown; claims did not justify Pennsylvania intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for exercising/declining jurisdiction)
- Lucas v. Lucas, 882 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2005) (abuse of discretion discussion cited in Wagner)
- J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2014) (purpose of UCCJEA to avoid jurisdictional competition)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (pending action defined; policy against simultaneous custody proceedings)
- C.L. v. Z.M.F.H., 18 A.3d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stay required where simultaneous proceedings in another forum)
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 474 A.2d 1124 (Pa. Super. 1984) (Pennsylvania court should stay or vacate where another state intends to exercise jurisdiction)