J.K. v. W.L.K.
102 A.3d 511
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father and Mother are natural parents of N.P.K. (born 2005) and G.W.K. (born 2009).
- Mother filed for divorce and sought custody in Chester County on February 8, 2011; an initial custody order was entered March 10, 2011 granting Mother primary custody with Father having partial periods of physical custody.
- The parties relocated to Montgomery County within two years and now reside about one mile apart with the Children.
- On September 16, 2013, Father petitioned to transfer custody jurisdiction from Chester County to Montgomery County; Mother opposed.
- A hearing was held October 16, 2013; the trial court denied the transfer on October 25, 2013 (docketed October 30, 2013).
- The court reverses, concluding Chester County lacks exclusive continuing venue and transferring jurisdiction to Montgomery County is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCCJEA governs the transfer of custody jurisdiction. | Father contends UCCJEA applies and Chester County no longer has venue. | Mother argues the court properly applied venue rules and Chester County remains appropriate. | UCCJEA governs; Chester County loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction. |
| Whether Chester County was an inconvenient forum under Rule 1915.2. | Father asserts Chester County is inconvenient given relocations and proximity to Montgomery. | Mother contends no basis to transfer under Rule 1915.2. | Rule 1915.2(c) transfer analysis inapplicable once Chester County loses venue; reverse. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.L.L.’s Estate, 487 Pa. 223 (1979) (clarifies jurisdiction vs. venue concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 574 Pa. 100 (2003) (defines simultaneous existence of subject matter jurisdiction and venue)
- Lucas v. Lucas, 882 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in custody venue rulings)
- B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2011) (transfer of custody jurisdiction not a modification under 5422(b))
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (relationship between Rule 1915.2 and 5427 convenience considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 101 A.3d 28 (Pa. 2014) (venue limitations on proceeding in intrastate custody disputes)