Cochrane, C. v. Tselekis, E.

Cochrane, 2025 Pa. Super. 134 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2025) · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · July 1, 2025 · No. J-S19012-25

Summary

This Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion addresses whether a state court has jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state child support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The court determined that because the controlling Maryland support order was never properly registered in Pennsylvania, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce or alter its terms. Consequently, the trial court's support orders were vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with statutory registration requirements.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Panella, P.J.E.; Stabile, J.; Beck, J.
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
July 1, 2025
Docket number
J-S19012-25
Procedural posture
Appeal from the order entered by the Pike County Court of Common Pleas on November 1, 2024 affirming the August 9, 2024 support order.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Evagelia Tselekis v. Charles George Cochrane
Disposition
vacated

Topics

child supportfamily lawsubject matter jurisdictioncivil procedure

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Pike County Court of Common Pleas should have applied the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to a support order originally issued by a Maryland court.
  2. Whether the Pike County Court erred in not addressing the non‑modifiable aspects of the Maryland child‑support order dated June 21, 2021.
  3. Whether Father provided insufficient evidence to justify a modification of the Maryland child‑support order dated June 21, 2021.

Holdings

  1. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Maryland child‑support order because the order was never properly registered in Pennsylvania; consequently, the trial court’s support orders are vacated.

Key quotations

The March 22, 2024 order and all subsequent orders pertaining to support owed by Mother and Father for Child entered in the Courts of this Commonwealth are therefore vacated. (at 11)

Factual background

Mother and Father are the natural parents of a child born in 2006. They executed a Maryland consent order in 2019 granting joint legal custody and a $100 monthly support obligation, later agreeing in 2021 to eliminate direct support payments and to pay expenses when the child was in each parent’s custody. Father moved to Florida; Mother later moved to Pennsylvania. Father filed a Pennsylvania support petition in 2023, and the Pike County court entered support orders in 2024 that modified the Maryland order without registering it in Pennsylvania.

Procedural history

The parties entered a consent child‑support agreement in Maryland in 2019, later modified by a June 2021 order that was intended to be non‑modifiable. Father filed a support petition in Pennsylvania in 2023; the Pike County trial court entered support orders in 2024 without a proper registration of the Maryland order. Mother appealed the trial court’s orders, leading to this Superior Court review.

Remand instructions

Remand to the trial court to determine what, if any, amount is owed and reimbursable to Mother based on the proper jurisdictional analysis.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…