J-S40001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NOAH JASLOW 

Appellant

v.

CLAIRE LOUISE TIMINS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1899 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered July 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2013-00422

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023

Noah Jaslow (“Father”) appeals from the order issued July 18, 2022, 

denying cross petitions for contempt of a custody order filed by Father and 

Claire Louise Timins (“Mother”). In addition to denying the contempt 

petitions, the court sua sponte transferred the custody action to Ocean 

County, New Jersey. On appeal, Father claims that (1) the trial court erred by 

sua sponte relinquishing jurisdiction of this custody case to New Jersey despite 

Father and the children having a significant connection to Pennsylvania; (2)

the trial court erred by not performing a forum non conveniens analysis and 

ignoring the parties’ prior forum selection clause; and (3) the trial court erred 

by issuing an unclear order as to the disposition of the contempt petitions.

Mother has not filed a brief on appeal. We agree with Father’s first two claims 
J-S40001-22

- 2 -

and hereby vacate and remand respectively. We disagree with Father’s last 

claim and therefore affirm.

Mother and Father were in a relationship for ten years but never 

married. They are the natural parents of two children, one born in 2008 and 

the other in 2011. Mother moved out of Father’s residence in Montgomery 

County at the end of 2012. Mother and Father filed cross-complaints for 

custody of their children in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

Protracted custody litigation ensued, resulting in a September 8, 2016 

custody order that provided for joint legal and physical custody of the children. 

At the time, both parents still lived in Montgomery County. The custody order 

directed that jurisdiction would remain in Montgomery County.

In 2021, the trial court granted, over Father’s objections, Mother’s 

request to move to Ocean County, New Jersey. The modified custody order 

provided for all custodial exchanges to occur at the Plymouth Meeting, 

Pennsylvania Whole Foods location, “or other Whole Foods location close to 

Father’s residence, as chosen by Father.” Amended Custody Order, 

7/21/2021, at ¶ 4.f. The order further provided that Mother and Father “have 

agreed that venue and jurisdiction of this matter exists and shall remain in 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, until the youngest of the Children reaches 

the age of eighteen (18).” Id., at ¶ 2. Father was awarded partial physical 

custody of the children “on alternate weekends from Friday at 7:00 p.m. until 

Sunday at 7:00 p.m.” Id., at ¶ 4.b.
J-S40001-22

- 3 -

In January 2022, Mother filed a petition seeking to have the court find 

Father in contempt of the custody order after he moved to another location in 

Montgomery County. Mother alleged that Father’s move significantly impaired 

her custody rights because Father now requested that custody exchanges take 

place at either the Whole Foods in Allentown or at a WaWa in Quakertown. 

According to Mother, these locations nearly doubled the time required to 

transport the children to the exchange.

Father filed an answer and counter-petition for contempt. While 

admitting he had moved, he denied that his move significantly impacted 

Mother’s custodial rights, as the WaWa location only added 19 minutes to 

Mother’s trip. Among other allegations not relevant here, Father alleged that 

Mother’s refusal to use the alternate exchange locations he selected 

constituted willful disobedience of the custody order and requested that 

Mother be found in contempt. 

On July 18, 2022, the trial court entered the order under appeal, denying 

both parties’ petitions for contempt. The order also directed the parties “to file 

any future custody modification petitions in Ocean County, New Jersey ...” 

Neither party requested a transfer. Father filed this timely appeal. 

On appeal, Father first claims the trial court erred by sua sponte

transferring jurisdiction of this custody case to New Jersey. Normally, a trial 

court's decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction “will not be disturbed absent 

an abuse of that discretion.” J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511, 513 (Pa Super. 
J-S40001-22

- 4 -

2014)(citations omitted).1 However, the trial court here concluded it did not 

have jurisdiction pursuant to section 5422 of the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the “UCCJEA”). See Trial Court Opinion, 

8/22/2022, at 8-9. “[A] section 5422 determination does not involve a trial 

court’s decision regarding whether to exercise jurisdiction that has been 

established. Rather, a section 5422 determination implicates the subject 

matter jurisdiction of the trial court.” S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402, 408 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). Therefore, our proper standard of review here is de novo and 

our scope of review is plenary. See id.

Section 5422 of the UCCJEA, as adopted in Pennsylvania, sets forth the 

following test to determine whether a trial court retains “exclusive, continuing 

jurisdiction” over its initial child custody order:

(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in section 5424 

(relating to temporary emergency jurisdiction), a court of this 

Commonwealth which has made a child custody determination 

consistent with section 5421 (relating to initial child custody 

jurisdiction) or 5423 (relating to jurisdiction to modify 

determination) has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the 

determination until:

(1) a court of this Commonwealth determines that neither 

the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a 

person acting as a parent have a significant connection with 

this Commonwealth and that substantial evidence is no 

____________________________________________

1 We note that the trial court’s order does not simply refuse to exercise 

jurisdiction. Instead, it transferred jurisdiction to New Jersey. If the court did 

not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over this custody dispute, it did not 

have jurisdiction to direct the parties to pursue their custody action in New 

Jersey. See B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19 A.3d 1081, 1083-84 (Pa. Super. 2011). Given 

our resolution of this appeal, we need not reach this issue. 
J-S40001-22

- 5 -

longer available in this Commonwealth concerning the 

child's care, protection, training and personal 

relationships[.]

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5422.

Under Section 5422, a Pennsylvania court that made the initial custody 

determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until both a significant 

connection to Pennsylvania and substantial evidence are lacking:

Under the plain meaning of section 5422(a)(1), a court that makes 

an initial custody determination retains exclusive, continuing 

jurisdiction until neither the child nor the child and one parent or 

a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with 

Pennsylvania and substantial evidence concerning the child's care, 

protection, training, and personal relationships is no longer 

available here. The use of the term "and" requires that exclusive 

jurisdiction continues in Pennsylvania until both a significant 

connection to Pennsylvania and the requisite substantial evidence 

are lacking. In other words, Pennsylvania will retain jurisdiction as 

long as a significant connection with Pennsylvania exists or

substantial evidence is present.

Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d 1217, 1220-1221 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). For purposes of 5422, a significant 

connection with the Commonwealth means “an important or meaningful 

relationship to the Commonwealth” which is determined by the “nature and 

quality of the child’s contacts with the parent living in the Commonwealth.” 

Id. at 1221-1222. This determination must be “based upon the factual 

circumstances as they existed at the time the petition is filed.” S.K.C. v. 

J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402, 412 (Pa. Super. 2014).
J-S40001-22

- 6 -

We begin our review by noting that the underlying contempt 

proceedings addressed only the parties’ disparate interpretations of the 

custody order’s requirements for the location of exchange of custody. As such, 

the court did not hear evidence regarding the children’s connection to 

Pennsylvania. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/2022, at 7-8. Instead, the court 

focused exclusively on the fact that Mother exercised her primary physical 

custody of the children in New Jersey. See id. at 10. As a result, the court did 

not perform any assessment of the nature and quality of the children’s 

contacts with the parent living in the Commonwealth as of the date of Mother’s 

petition for contempt. The record before us is woefully inadequate to support 

any conclusion whatsoever on the nature and quality of the children’s contacts 

with Pennsylvania. And since neither party was notified that a transfer of 

jurisdiction under section 5422 was at issue, we cannot conclude that any 

party bore the burden of presenting evidence on this issue. Accordingly, the 

court’s sua sponte transfer of jurisdiction constitutes an error of law and must 

be vacated.

In his second issue, Father claims that the trial court erred by 

transferring the venue of this case to New Jersey. Here, the trial court denies 

it transferred venue because it believes it did not have jurisdiction under 

section 5422. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/2022, at 11. We therefore 

conclude this issue is moot, as the court denied any intent to transfer venue 

or finding that Montgomery County is an inconvenient forum.
J-S40001-22

- 7 -

Lastly, Father claims the trial court erred by issuing an unclear order as 

to the disposition of the contempt petitions. We disagree. The order denies 

both contempt petitions, but directed that “[t]he parties are to comply with 

Paragraph 4(f) of [the] July 21, 2021 Amended Custody Order of the 

Honorable Melissa S. Sterling regarding custody exchanges of the minor 

children.” Court Order, 7/18/22. Paragraph 4(f) of the July 21, 2021 

amended custody order requires that “[a]ll custodial exchanges shall take 

place at the Plymouth Meeting, PA Whole Foods location or other Whole Foods 

location close to Father’s residence, as chosen by Father.” 

Father contends that, logically, the court was required to resolve the 

parties’ dispute over whether the amended custody order required Mother to 

drive to the Allentown Whole Foods or Quakertown WaWa at Father’s request. 

Our review of the record reveals that the court addressed this issue by 

directing the parties to comply with paragraph 4(f) of the custody order. This 

direction indicates that Mother was wrong in claiming she could reject Father’s 

choice of a Whole Foods location closer to his residence. Importantly, it also 

rejected Father’s argument that he could force Mother to drive to the 

Quakertown WaWa for the custody exchange.

Further, Father’s argument goes too far in assuming the trial court was 

required to find one party or the other in contempt. To the contrary, the trial 

court was entitled to deny Father’s contempt petition, even in the face of a 

finding that Mother had violated the amended custody order, if it also found 
J-S40001-22

- 8 -

that Mother had not acted with wrongful intent. See Epstein v. Saul Ewing 

LLP, 7 A.3d 303, 318 (Pa. Super. 2010).

To summarize, we conclude the trial court erred in ordering this custody 

matter be transferred to Ocean County, New Jersey. We therefore vacate that 

part of the July 18, 2022 order. In contrast, we find no merit in Father’s claim 

that the order is too vague, and therefore affirm the rest of the order. 

Order is vacated in part, remanded in part, and affirmed in part. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/24/2023