Court Opinion

ID: 9380577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 16:07:22.083513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.291344
License: Public Domain

J-S05032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    MICHAEL T. BROWN                           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ALYSSA M. BROWN                            :   No. 1245 WDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered October 21, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Domestic Relations at
                            No(s): FC-2021-90711

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                        FILED: MARCH 20, 2023

        Michael T. Brown (“Father”) appeals from the order awarding him shared

physical and legal custody of his minor child, A.O.B. (“Child”). Father argues

the court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction. We affirm.

        Father filed the underlying custody complaint in November 2021. He

filed it in Butler County, Pennsylvania, the site of the marital home. The parties

could not reach a custody agreement after two custody conciliation hearings,

and the court scheduled the matter for trial. Child’s mother, Alyssa M. Brown

(“Mother”), filed a pre-trial motion to transfer the action to Maryland based

on inconvenient forum.1 By that time, Mother had relocated with Child to

Maryland, and Father resided in Virginia. Given the age and progression of the

____________________________________________

1   See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5427.
J-S05032-23

case, and the need to decide the matter expeditiously, the court denied the

motion to transfer and proceeded to trial.

      Following trial, the court entered an order awarding the parties shared

custody of Child. The order concluded, “Because of the geographical locations

of the parties, this Court relinquishes its jurisdiction to the above-captioned

matter. If any further disputes arise, they are more appropriately raised in the

courts of either Maryland or Virginia.” Memorandum and Order, 10/21/22, at

14. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explains that it relinquished

jurisdiction   pursuant    to   the   Uniform   Child   Custody    Jurisdiction   and

Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/22, at 4-5 (citing 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a)(1)). It found neither Child, Mother, Father, nor any

person acting as Child’s parent reside in Pennsylvania, and that substantial

evidence regarding Child’s care is not available in Pennsylvania. Id. at 4-5.

      Father appealed. The sole issue Father raises on appeal is “[w]hether

the trial court prematurely relinquished jurisdiction of this case[.]” Father’s

Br. at 18. Father argues that the trial court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction

was premature, as no other state had accepted jurisdiction, which he claims

is required by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5424. Id. at 20-21. Father asserts that pursuant

to Section 5424, the court’s order should have specified a period for the

parties   to   seek   an   order   from   another   state   with   jurisdiction   and

communicated with that court before relinquishing jurisdiction. Id. at 21.

Father contends that the court’s premature relinquishment of jurisdiction

                                          -2-
J-S05032-23

deprives him of the ability to enforce the custody order. Id. Mother has not

filed a brief.

      We review a custody court’s determination of whether it should continue

to exercise jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d

1174, 1176 (Pa.Super. 2008).

      The UCCJEA governs subject matter jurisdiction over child custody cases

between Pennsylvania and other states. J.S. v. R.S.S., 231 A.3d 942, 947

(Pa.Super. 2020). Under Section 5421(a), a court has jurisdiction to make an

initial custody determination when certain conditions are met, such as if

Pennsylvania is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement

of the proceeding. See, e.g., 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5421(a)(1). After the initial

custody determination has been made, Section 5422 governs the continuing

jurisdiction of the court. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422. It provides that the court

that “has made a child custody determination consistent with Section 5421

(relating to initial child custody jurisdiction) or 5423 (relating to jurisdiction to

modify determination)” maintains “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over the

case “until” one of two situations arise:

      (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 longer
      available in this Commonwealth concerning the child’s care,
      protection, training and personal relationships; or

      (2) a court of this Commonwealth or a court of another state
      determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person
      acting as a parent do not presently reside in this Commonwealth.

                                        -3-
J-S05032-23

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a).

        Father does not contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make

the initial custody determination order under Section 5421(a). See 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 5421 (“Initial child custody jurisdiction”). Nor does he argue that

the standard at Section 5422(a)(1), establishing the court’s continuing

jurisdiction   ends    when      no   parties    have   significant   connection   with

Pennsylvania, has not been met. Rather, Father contends the court

relinquished its continuing jurisdiction prematurely, because the court’s order

does not meet the requirements of Section 5424.

        Section 5424 allows a court to exercise temporary emergency

jurisdiction. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5424. It provides rules for how long an order

made under such jurisdiction remains in effect, and under what circumstances

the temporary emergency jurisdiction shall end.2 Here, Father did not move

____________________________________________

2   Section 5424 provides is as follows:

        § 5424. Temporary emergency jurisdiction

        (a) General rule.--A court of this Commonwealth has temporary
        emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this
        Commonwealth and the child has been abandoned or it is
        necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child
        or a sibling or parent of the child is subjected to or threatened
        with mistreatment or abuse.

        (b) No previous custody determination or proceeding.--If
        there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to
        be enforced under this chapter and a child custody proceeding has
        not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S05032-23

____________________________________________

       sections 5421 (relating to initial child custody jurisdiction) through
       5423 (relating to jurisdiction to modify determination), a child
       custody determination made under this section remains in effect
       until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction
       under sections 5421 through 5423. If a child custody proceeding
       has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having
       jurisdiction under sections 5421 through 5423, a child custody
       determination made under this section becomes a final
       determination if it so provides and this Commonwealth becomes
       the home state of the child.

       (c) Previous custody determination or proceeding.--If there
       is a previous child custody determination that is entitled to be
       enforced under this chapter or a child custody proceeding has
       been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under
       sections 5421 through 5423, any order issued by a court of this
       Commonwealth under this section must specify in the order a
       period that the court considers adequate to allow the person
       seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having
       jurisdiction under sections 5421 through 5423. The order issued
       in this Commonwealth remains in effect until an order is obtained
       from the other state within the period specified or the period
       expires.

       (d) Mandatory communication between courts.--A court of
       this Commonwealth which has been asked to make a child custody
       determination under this section, upon being informed that a child
       custody proceeding has been commenced in or a child custody
       determination has been made by a court of a state having
       jurisdiction under sections 5421 through 5423, shall immediately
       communicate with the other court. A court of this Commonwealth
       which is exercising jurisdiction pursuant to sections 5421 through
       5423, upon being informed that a child custody proceeding has
       been commenced in or a child custody determination has been
       made by a court of another state under a statute similar to this
       section, shall immediately communicate with the court of that
       state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties
       and the child and determine a period for the duration of the
       temporary order.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5424.

                                           -5-
J-S05032-23

for temporary emergency jurisdiction under Section 5424, and the trial court

did not exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction. It appears to have

exercised jurisdiction under Section 5421(a). Therefore, Section 5424’s rules

regarding the termination or relinquishment of temporary emergency

jurisdiction do not apply.

      Rather, the trial court, after exercising initial jurisdiction under Section

5421(a), applied    Section   5422(a)(1) and relinquished jurisdiction. It

determined “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 longer available in this

Commonwealth concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal

relationships.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a)(1); see Trial Ct. Op. at 4-5. The record

supports these findings, and the court did not abuse its discretion in making

this determination and relinquishing jurisdiction. Insofar as Father contends

that the relinquishment deprives him of the ability to enforce the order, that

question is not ripe for our consideration, given that he has not sought

enforcement.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2023

                                      -6-