W.P.L. v. A.S.L.
W.P.L. v. A.S.L. No. 1280 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 11, 2017Background
- Mother (A.S.L.) and Father have litigated custody since 2008; Pennsylvania was the child’s home state when the court first assumed jurisdiction.
- Mother relocated with the minor child (b. 06/2007) to California pursuant to earlier court orders that allowed relocation and scheduled summer visits for Father in Pennsylvania.
- In 2016 Mother filed a Petition for Change of Venue asking the Pennsylvania court to relinquish jurisdiction to California under the UCCJEA.
- The trial court held a full-day evidentiary hearing, concluded Pennsylvania retained continuing jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S. §5422, and denied transfer as Pennsylvania was not an inconvenient forum under §5427.
- Mother appealed, arguing the child lacks a significant connection to Pennsylvania and that Pennsylvania is an inconvenient forum; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S. §5422 (significant connection / substantial evidence) | The child and Mother established significant contacts with California; Pennsylvania no longer has a significant connection and substantial evidence | Pennsylvania maintains significant connections (father’s parenting time, relatives, activities) so court should retain jurisdiction | Court held Pennsylvania has a significant connection; jurisdiction retained (no need to decide substantial evidence) |
| Whether Pennsylvania is an inconvenient forum under 23 Pa.C.S. §5427 (eight-factor test) | California is more appropriate given child’s residency and Mother’s relocation; transfer would better serve convenience | Pennsylvania is appropriate because the court is familiar with the case, prior proceedings occurred here, and neither party would be unduly burdened | Court held no abuse of discretion: none of the §5427 factors supported relinquishment; Pennsylvania is not an inconvenient forum |
Key Cases Cited
- S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2014) (UCCJEA principles on retention and forum convenience)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for discretionary jurisdictional decisions)
- Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (analysis of significant connection must focus on child’s contacts)
- Rennie, 995 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parent’s residence and exercise of parenting time can establish a child’s significant connection)