179 A.3d 95
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Child born out of wedlock; Maternal Grandmother obtained New York Family Court custody orders (final order Feb 15, 2012; later orders in 2012 and 2016).
- Mother (resident of New York) filed in Northampton County, PA on Feb 3, 2017 seeking modification of the New York custody order; Father in Hawaii; Grandmother and Child in Pennsylvania.
- New York court informed the Pennsylvania court it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and offered a conference under the UCCJEA; Pennsylvania court declined and nonetheless entered an interim custody order on Apr 10, 2017.
- Grandmother moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; trial court denied the motion and later found Grandmother in contempt for violating the interim order, imposing a $5,000 sanction (June 14, 2017).
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5423 (UCCJEA § 203) and therefore could not modify the New York order or hold Grandmother in contempt; the contempt order was reversed and case remanded with instructions to vacate orders and cooperate with New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA court had jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5423(1) to modify NY custody order | Mother: PA court may find PA is a more convenient forum and thus exercise jurisdiction | Grandmother: Only the original-state court (NY) may determine it lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that another state is more convenient | Held: § 5423(1) requires the other state's court to make that determination; PA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether PA court could invoke § 5423(2) because parties include Pennsylvania residents | Mother: implied PA could proceed since child and grandparent live in PA | Grandmother: Mother remains a NY resident, so § 5423(2) not satisfied | Held: § 5423(2) inapplicable because Mother still resides in NY |
| Effect of New York’s explicit refusal to relinquish jurisdiction | Mother/trial court: New York’s position could be disregarded | Grandmother: NY court’s retention bars PA modification | Held: NY court’s retention prevents PA modification under § 5423(1) |
| Validity of contempt sanction entered by a court lacking jurisdiction | Mother: sanction stands | Grandmother: court lacked authority to issue contempt for an order it could not validly enter | Held: A court cannot hold contempt for an order it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue; contempt reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rancosky v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 170 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2017) (statutory construction principles)
- S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2014) (UCCJEA interpretation and jurisdictional consent principles)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (addressing § 5423(2) analysis)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 510 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 1986) (court cannot find contempt for order it lacked jurisdiction to enter)
- Grega v. Grega, 524 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (state appellate decision construing UCCJEA § 203 consistent with limiting modification power to original state)
- Ball v. McGowan, 497 S.W.3d 245 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016) (holding modification power under UCCJEA § 203 belongs to original decree state)
- In re Kaela C., 906 A.2d 915 (Md. 2006) (UCCJEA § 203 construed to restrict modification absent original-state relinquishment)
- Stocker v. Sheehan, 786 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (interpreting UCCJEA § 203 to preclude modification by another state without original court’s determination)