378 S.W.3d 838
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Amy Piccioni appeals the January 20, 2010 Lonoke County order deferring jurisdiction to Pennsylvania under the UCCJEA and dismissing Arkansas matters.
- Piccioni moved with the parties’ son to Pennsylvania after the divorce, living there about twenty months before returning to Arkansas in December 2009.
- Affidavit alleges Mr. Piccioni abused alcohol, drove intoxicated with the child, and was abusive to Piccioni in the child’s presence; gun threat alleged.
- Piccioni sought to modify visitation and obtain ex parte emergency relief; asserted Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction and Arkansas had exclusive jurisdiction.
- Trial court conferred with Pennsylvania, deferred jurisdiction to Pennsylvania, and dismissed pending Arkansas matters; Piccioni timely appealed.
- Court affirms, holding Arkansas lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and Pennsylvania home state/Judiciary preferences govern
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA/PKPA | Piccioni argues Arkansas retains jurisdiction | Piccioni contends residence moved; Arkansas no longer exclusive | Arkansas lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction |
| Whether Pennsylvania is the child’s home state under PKPA/UCCJEA | Home state is where child resided with parent for six months | Residence and home state may be Pennsylvania given stay durations | Pennsylvania is the child’s home state |
| Whether the court erred by deferring jurisdiction without a hearing on modification/emergency relief | Trial court should hold a hearing and record communication | Communication under statute is discretionary; hearing not mandatory | Discretionary communication permitted; no mandatory hearing required |
| Whether the trial court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction as inconvenient forum | Arkansas is more convenient forum due to support network | Other state's forum (Pennsylvania) appropriate given home state status | Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction; PA more appropriate forum |
| Whether the appellate record properly excludes extraneous orders from Pennsylvania | Supplemental PA orders should be considered | Only record before Arkansas court may be reviewed | Orders not in the appellate record are not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Gullahorn v. Gullahorn, 99 Ark. App. 397 (2007) (GCCJEA governs jurisdiction; de novo review applies)
- West v. West, 216 S.W.3d 557 (2005) (PKPA preferences in jurisdictional analysis)
- Gray v. Gray, 12 S.W.3d 648 (2000) (PKPA priority and home-state considerations)
- Davis v. Sheriff, 308 S.W.3d 169 (2009) (evidence supports change in circumstances notwithstanding missing findings)