Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed a father's appeal from an order overruling preliminary objections to a Pennsylvania custody complaint. The court held that the father's earlier New Jersey divorce complaint, which included custody averments, constituted a prior child-custody proceeding under the UCCJEA and required the Pennsylvania court to stay the matter and communicate with the New Jersey court. The court also concluded that Pennsylvania was not the children's home state because their initial relocation there was temporary, reversed the order, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Pennsylvania trial court was required under the UCCJEA to recognize Father's earlier-filed New Jersey divorce proceeding containing custody averments as a simultaneous child custody proceeding, stay the Pennsylvania proceeding, and communicate with the New Jersey court.
- Whether Pennsylvania was the children's home state for purposes of making an initial child custody determination when the children moved there under an initially temporary arrangement and had lived there permanently for fewer than six months.
- Whether the exclusion of a New Jersey mediation report and the admission of testimony concerning marital infidelity were erroneous.
Holdings
- A divorce proceeding that includes custody averments qualifies as a child custody proceeding under the UCCJEA. Because Father's New Jersey proceeding commenced before Mother's Pennsylvania custody proceeding, the Pennsylvania court was required to stay its proceeding, communicate with the New Jersey court, and allow the court with jurisdictional priority to exercise or decline jurisdiction.
- Pennsylvania was not the children's home state for purposes of an initial custody determination because the children's residence there was temporary until November 2011, leaving fewer than six months of permanent residence before Mother's January 13, 2012 custody filing.
- The Pennsylvania trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide that Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the custody matter because the UCCJEA required the jurisdictional determination to proceed through communication with the New Jersey court.
Key quotations
“We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in making this determination.” (57 A.3d at 131)
“As such, it was incumbent upon the trial court to stay the Pennsylvania proceeding, contact the New Jersey courts in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S. § 5410, regarding communication between courts, who would then have the opportunity to exercise or decline jurisdiction.” (57 A.3d at 131)
“It is only a determination that Pennsylvania does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over this custody matter.” (57 A.3d at 134)
Factual background
The parties married in 2005 and had two children, born in 2007 and 2010, while living in New Jersey. After Mother learned of Father's affair, she moved with the children from New Jersey to Erie, Pennsylvania, on June 2, 2011. Father initially objected but agreed to the move on a temporary basis, with the parties to reevaluate their arrangement after six months. In November 2011, Mother told Father she would not return to New Jersey; Father filed a New Jersey divorce complaint containing custody averments before Mother filed her Pennsylvania custody complaint.
Procedural history
Father filed a New Jersey divorce complaint containing custody averments on November 30, 2011, and Mother was served on December 28, 2011. Mother then filed a custody complaint in Pennsylvania on January 13, 2012. The Pennsylvania trial court held a hearing and overruled Father's preliminary objections, concluding that Pennsylvania was the children's home state. After the trial court amended its order to permit an interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court denied permission as moot because the order was immediately appealable as of right. The Superior Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including compliance with the UCCJEA's stay and interstate-court communication procedures. Jurisdiction was relinquished.