219 A.3d 1190
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Mother (T.D.) and Father (M.H.) are parents of S.H. (b.2011). Child lived with Mother since birth.
- Mother filed a custody complaint in Pennsylvania (Delaware County) on Sept. 19, 2017 after Delaware declined to accept her pleading on Sept. 1, 2017.
- The Pennsylvania court entered a temporary custody order on Oct. 27, 2017 awarding Mother primary physical custody; Father had every-other-weekend time.
- Father filed a petition in Pennsylvania to transfer jurisdiction to Delaware on Mar. 27, 2018; Mother moved with Child to Pennsylvania on Apr. 14, 2018.
- Father later filed a custody modification petition in Delaware on Aug. 30, 2018 (stayed); the Pennsylvania trial court granted transfer to Delaware on Aug. 8, 2018, reconsidered, held a hearing, and again transferred jurisdiction on Mar. 15, 2019. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper "snapshot" date under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422 when assessing whether the original decree state retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction | The court should use the date Father filed a modification petition in Delaware (Aug. 30, 2018) because that reflects current connections; alternatively, S.K.C. requires using the filing date of a modification in the original-decree state | The court used Mar. 27, 2018 (date Father filed his transfer petition in PA) as the relevant date | Court erred: S.K.C. requires using the date a motion to modify custody is filed in the original-decree state; neither party filed such a modification in PA, so the trial court misapplied the correct "snapshot" rule |
| Whether Pennsylvania court lacked power to transfer if it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction at time transfer petition was filed | If jurisdiction had already lapsed as of Mar. 27, 2018, the PA court lacked power to transfer and the transfer order should be dismissed | PA court asserted it had authority to decide whether it retained jurisdiction under §5422 and therefore could transfer | Court rejected Mother’s circular challenge to its authority to decide §5422, but because it used the wrong snapshot date and no Pennsylvania modification petition exists, jurisdiction remains in Delaware County, and transfer was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Section 5422 analysis must use facts as they existed when the motion to modify custody was filed in the original-decree state)
- Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains §5422(a)(1) "significant connection" and that both prongs must be lacking to relinquish jurisdiction)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discusses meaning of "reside" and physical presence under UCCJEA)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (describes UCCJEA purposes to avoid jurisdictional competition)
- Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly, 980 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2009) (UCCJEA intended to prevent a rush to the courthouse over jurisdiction)
Order reversed; Pennsylvania court retains jurisdiction based on the original complaint and temporary order.