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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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