S.K.C. v. J.L.C.
94 A.3d 402
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Child born May 2000; lived primarily in Mercer County, PA until May 2012 but family spent several months yearly in Moffet, Quebec where parents managed a lodge.
- Father obtained primary physical custody by consent order entered June 14, 2012; order contained a forum‑selection clause vesting venue in Mercer County and provided Mother custodial time (first week of each month, holidays) with handoffs in Orillia, Ontario.
- Mother filed a petition to modify custody on October 22, 2012; Father moved to relinquish jurisdiction to Quebec courts. Trial court denied relinquishment on December 5, 2012 and later certified the issue for appeal.
- Key legal question concerned whether Mercer County retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422) and, if so, whether Mercer County was an inconvenient forum under § 5427.
- Trial court found (1) it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under § 5422 based on facts as of the modification petition date, and (2) Mercer County was not an inconvenient forum after weighing the eight § 5427 factors (domestic violence, residency history, distance, finances, forum clause, evidence location, expeditiousness, court familiarity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mercer County retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422 | Father: relocation to Quebec and child’s enrollment there destroyed a "significant connection" and removed substantial evidence from PA, so § 5422(a)(1) no longer applies | Mother: Pennsylvania remained the home state at commencement and, as of the modification petition, Mother continued to exercise parenting time and meaningful ties existed; forum clause reinforced venue | Court: Held Mercer County retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; § 5422 analysis is reviewed de novo and must rely on facts as of the modification petition filing date; forum‑selection clauses cannot establish subject‑matter jurisdiction under § 5422 |
| Whether Mercer County is an inconvenient forum under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5427 | Father: changed circumstances, distance, child living in Quebec, and burden on mother weigh toward relinquishing jurisdiction | Mother: forum clause, existing record, court familiarity, history of domestic violence, and relative ease of obtaining Pennsylvania evidence weigh against relinquishment | Court: Held trial court did not abuse discretion; majority of § 5427 factors weighed for exercising jurisdiction (domestic violence, residency history, forum clause, court familiarity, expeditious resolution); some factors neutral |
Key Cases Cited
- Beneficial Consumer Disc. Co. v. Vukman, 77 A.3d 547 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction questions is de novo)
- Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2010) (interpretation of § 5422: both "significant connection" and "substantial evidence" must be lacking to divest jurisdiction)
- B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2011) (section 5422 determinations implicate subject‑matter jurisdiction and are reviewed de novo)
- Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (prior discussion of significant‑connection factor; distinguished here)
- A.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussion of forum provisions; court here clarifies forum‑selection clauses do not create subject‑matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- Friedman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011) (forum‑selection clauses are irrelevant to UCCJEA § 202 jurisdiction analysis)
- In re A.C.S., 157 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App. 2004) (parties cannot confer exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA § 202)