Welliver v. Ortiz – Pa. Super. – March 8, 2023
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A03019-23o%20-%20105457667214892481.pdf?cb=1
Held: Pennsylvania trial court did not have jurisdiction over custody case, where neither parent had lived here for a considerable time, and there was no substantial evidence concerning the child in this state.
Accordingly, the trial court did not have exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the most recent custody petition.
The court also lacked jurisdiction under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(b), which permits a court to modify a custody determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5421(a).
The facts on the record fail to establish any of the four jurisdictional bases stated in section 5421, concerning jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination: subsection (
1) is inapposite because the Commonwealth was not Child’s home state at the time of the proceeding or six months before; subsection
(2) is inapposite because a court of another state had jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the 2020 petition; subsection
(3) is inapposite because New Jersey (and/or California) have not declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that the Commonwealth is the most appropriate forum to determine custody under sections 5427 or 5428; and
(4) at least one other state would have jurisdiction under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3).
The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to modify custody under section 5421. Because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, its August 19, 2022 custody order is null and void.
