179 A.3d 1124
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Parents married in New York (2012), moved to Philadelphia in 2016, child E.C. born in Pennsylvania (2016); parents separated and mother and child returned to Ithaca, NY in early 2017.
- Mother filed for custody and a PFA in Tompkins County Family Court; NY judge entered an ex parte temporary physical custody order for Mother (Feb 23, 2017).
- Father filed a custody complaint in Philadelphia and sought expedited relief, asserting Pennsylvania was the child’s home state under the UCCJEA; Mother moved to transfer jurisdiction to New York under the UCCJEA inconvenient-forum provision (§5427).
- A Philadelphia motions court stayed the Pennsylvania proceedings pending a jurisdictional determination by the New York court; the trial court and the NY judge held a telephone conference on April 19, 2017 without notifying or allowing the parents to participate.
- After that inter-court communication the Philadelphia trial court relinquished jurisdiction to New York and the custody complaint was dismissed; Father appealed arguing statutory and due-process violations for lack of notice, participation, findings, and consideration of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction without findings or proper §5427 analysis | Trial court failed to entertain evidence or make findings on §5427 inconvenient-forum factors; abused discretion | Trial court properly considered factors via inter-court communication and pleadings | Court reversed: trial court abused discretion by failing to allow Father to submit information and consider §5427 factors properly |
| 2. Whether trial court violated UCCJEA communication rules and due process by not following §5410/§5424 procedures | Failure to promptly communicate, give notice, or allow participation deprived Father of statutory and due-process rights | Communication between courts was permissible; Father received transcript via NY and pleadings sufficed | Court found statutory participation/notice requirements violated and reversal required (remand for compliance) |
| 3. Whether trial court abdicated its responsibility by deferring to the NY judge during the conference | Trial court improperly ceded decision-making to NY judge and relied on motions court stay to evade duty | Trial court adopted the joint recitation and expressly agreed it was its decision to relinquish jurisdiction | Court rejected abdication claim (trial court did make the decision) but still found procedural error for not allowing Father to present argument |
| 4. Whether trial court failed to consider Father’s arguments about mother’s relocation and alleged procedural defenses | Father argued relocation rules and abuse allegations required consideration and could affect inconvenient-forum analysis | Mother argued abuse allegations and circumstances supported NY as more appropriate forum; relocation defenses are subject to mitigation where abuse is claimed | Court remanded without deciding these merits; ordered trial court to permit submission on §5427 factors and comply with §5410 participation rules |
Key Cases Cited
- S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for decision to exercise or decline custody jurisdiction)
- B.A.B. v. J.J.B., 166 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. 2017) (definition of abuse of discretion and standards for appellate review)
- J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (harmless-error and prejudice requirement for relief)
- Joselit v. Joselit, 544 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. 1988) (party bearing burden to prove home state is an inconvenient forum)