Opinion ID: 2347875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Custody Jurisdiction Over an Absent Parent

Text: The recognized bases for the judicial assertion of jurisdiction in child custody cases include the physical presence of the child in the state, the domicile of the parties to the controversy, and the domicile of the parent who has physical custody. Conflict of Laws, Restatement 2d, § 79, cited with approval in Commonwealth ex rel. Logan v. Toomey, 241 Pa.Super. 80, 359 A.2d 468 (1976). No problem exists in this case as to the basis for jurisdiction because, at the inception of the proceedings, the child was living in Pennsylvania and the father, who has physical custody, was domiciled in Pennsylvania. Domicile is a recognized basis for the assertion of jurisdiction. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940). The more serious question presents itself as to the subjection of the father to Pennsylvania jurisdiction in that there is no return of service by the sheriff. Custody proceedings can properly be commenced under our ancient proceeding for habeas corpus. The Act of February 18, 1785, 2 Sm.L. 275, § 1, 12 P.S. § 1873, provides for service as follows: And whenever the said writ shall, by any person, be served upon the officer, sheriff, jailer, keeper or other person whatsoever, to whom the same shall be directed, by being brought to him, or by being left with any of his under officers or deputies, at the jail, or place where the prisoner is detained . . . (emphasis added). Its broad scope of applicability to any keeper is matched by its provision for service upon any deputy where the person is detained. Deputy would include any agent who is holding custody for the parent. The Act of May 25, 1951, P.L. 415, § 4, 12 P.S. § 1904, also deals with service and notice of a writ of habeas corpus, stating: Service of the writ or the rule to show cause, as the case may be, shall be made forthwith in such manner as the judge may direct, anywhere in the Commonwealth, upon the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of the penitentiary . . . or other place in which the relator is imprisoned or detained. These broad provisions are to be compared with the ordinary civil rule for service at the domicile of a defendant by leaving a copy with an adult member of the household. Pa.R.C.P. 1009(b)(2)(i). It is unnecessary to decide which provision is applicable because they are each of the same import. The contention that the writ or a copy was not left with the stepmother is adequately met by her testimony as to her refusal to accept the writ and by her knowledge of what it was about, which information was admittedly given to her husband. Service cannot be negated by refusing to accept papers, and whether the refusal is by the defendant or a representative is immaterial. Compare Pincus v. Mutual Assurance Co., 457 Pa. 94, 321 A.2d 906 (1974), where the return of service showed that the recipient whose name was required refused to state his name. It is true that residents cannot attack a sheriff's return when it recites facts showing that service has been effected. Hollinger v. Hollinger, 416 Pa. 473, 206 A.2d 1 (1965). The absence of a return that service has been effected, however, is not conclusive of non-service upon a court which hears facts establishing the validity of the service. In Goodman v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, 211 Minn. 181, 183-84, 300 N.W. 624, 625 (1941), the court pointed out that the fact of service is the important thing in determining jurisdiction and added that proof of service may be defective or even lacking, but if the fact of service is established jurisdiction cannot be questioned. In Commonwealth ex rel. Zimbo v. Zoretskie, 124 Pa.Super. 154, 188 A. 365 (1936), it is pointed out that procedural irregularities such as the non-filing of a return of service will not stand in the way of a habeas corpus proceeding for custody to be decided on the merits. There is no serious question as to the husband having been given notice of the two hearings. His wife testified as to giving him notice and in addition notice was mailed to the husband's attorney in New York. The reasonableness of the steps taken to give notice to the father is unquestionable.