Kyle OMalley v. Danielle Isquierdo

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed whether Pennsylvania retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to modify a custody order involving a child retained in Brazil. The court agreed that Pennsylvania initially had jurisdiction but held that the trial court erred in concluding that Pennsylvania could not exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after the Brazilian Superior Court determined that the United States was the appropriate forum for custody proceedings. The court reversed the December 9, 2024 order and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Pennsylvania was properly vested with jurisdiction to make the initial child-custody determination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5421(a)(1), because Pennsylvania was the child's home state within six months before Father commenced the proceeding and Father continued to live there.
2. Pennsylvania lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under Section 5422(a)(2) once the child, both parents, and all persons acting as parents no longer resided in Pennsylvania.
3. Pennsylvania retained jurisdiction to modify the custody determination because Brazil had determined that the United States was the appropriate jurisdiction to decide custody, satisfying the substance of Section 5421(a)(3).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pennsylvania retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after Father moved to New Jersey and G.O. remained in Brazil.
2. Whether the Brazilian Superior Court's determination that the United States was the child's habitual-residence country and the more appropriate forum required consideration under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5421(a)(3).
3. Whether Pennsylvania could exercise jurisdiction to modify the existing custody determination despite Brazil's status as the child's home state under the UCCJEA.

Disposition

vacated