A.D. v. M.A.B.

A.D. v. M.A.B. No. 1883 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 15 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 2/1/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at OC 0171488
Before: STEVENS, BOWES, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
M.A.B. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which declined jurisdiction in this child custody matter in favor of the courts of the State of Michigan upon reconsideration of the trial court’s order of February 23, 2009, as requested by A.D. (“Mother”). We hold that the trial court considered and properly weighed all the relevant factors for inconvenient forums pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5427. Accordingly, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

M.A.T. v. G.S.T.

M.A.T. v. G.S.T. No. 1517 MDA 2008 2010 PA Super 8 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/21/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered August 11, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Civil Division at No. 2006 CV 4571 CU
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant M.A.T. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 denying her petition for modification of a custody order granting Appellee G.S.T. (“Father”) primary physical custody of their daughter K.J.T. (“Daughter”). The trial court based its decision on (1) its application of an evidentiary presumption against a homosexual parent, see, e.g., Constant A. v. Paul C.A., 496 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1985); and (2) rejection of uncontroverted expert testimony recommending shared custody. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the trial court’s order and grant Mother’s petition for modification of the custody order. In doing so, we overrule the holding and reasoning in Constant. We further rule that the trial court in this case abused its discretion in rejecting the recommendations of the jointly retained custody evaluator and basing its decision to award primary physical custody to Father upon the trial court’s personal opinion that shared custody is seldom (if ever) in the best interests of school-age children. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 and remand for entry of an order consistent with this Opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

R.M.G., JR. v. F.M.G.

R.M.G., JR. v. F.M.G. No. 908 WDA 2009 2009 PA Super 244 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/16/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered May 4, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Civil Division, at No. 733 of 2005-D
Before: MUSMANNO, BENDER AND CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
R.M.G., Jr. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on May 4, 2009 following a hearing on the petition filed by F.M.G. (“Mother”) to modify custody of their two children, S.G. (d.o.b. 2/13/99) and Z.G. (d.o.b. 10/23/00) (collectively “the Children”). Father complains the trial court erred by modifying a May 2008 custody arrangement because Mother did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances. Father also argues the trial court erred or abused its discretion by finding a changed custody arrangement would serve the best interests of the Children. Because a material change in circumstances is not a prerequisite to modification and because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s modification of the May 2008 arrangement, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

TIJEN HARCAR v. DOGAN TALHA HARCAR

TIJEN HARCAR v. DOGAN TALHA HARCAR No. 1851 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 203 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 10/21/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered October 9, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County, Domestic Relations Division, at No. 10639 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Dogan Talha Harcar (“Father”), appeals from the order dated October 7, 2008, and entered October 9, 2008, finding Appellee, Tijen Harcar (“Mother”), in contempt of the trial court’s orders entered on June 2, 2006 and September 5, 2006 by remaining in the Republic of Turkey with the parties’ son, Taha Murat Harcar (“Child”). The trial court declined to impose any sanctions on Mother. The trial court also ruled that Beaver County was an inconvenient forum under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5427, and directed that any further child custody proceedings should be instituted in the Republic of Turkey. After careful review, we affirm to the extent that the trial court held Mother in contempt. To the extent that it refused to impose any sanction, we reverse and remand. To the extent that the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction in the future, we vacate.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

MARIE C. BOUZOS-REILLY v. JOHN C. REILLY

MARIE C. BOUZOS-REILLY v. JOHN C. REILLY No. 63 WDA 2009 2009 PA Super 165 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 643 Petition for Reargument Denied 10/16/2009 Filed: 8/27/2009
	Appeal from the Order of December 23, 2008 In the Court of Common of Allegheny County, Family Court at No. FD08-009015-006
Before: KLEIN, ALLEN and COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Marie C. Bouzos-Reilly (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order granting John C. Reilly’s (Father) motion to dismiss Mother’s custody complaint on the grounds that a New York judge determined that New York was the home state and that Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction. We find that the Pennsylvania trial judge abused her discretion when she deferred to a New York trial judge’s improper determination that New York was the home state of the underlying custody matter. Because the trial judge failed to conduct a full hearing with relevant witnesses to elicit testimony regarding the underlying jurisdictional issue, there was insufficient evidence on the record to support the trial court’s findings. Thus, we reverse.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

AMY MARIE GIANVITO v. RICHARD GIANVITO

AMY MARIE GIANVITO v. RICHARD GIANVITO No. 1334 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 108 Atlantic: 975 A.2d 1164 Filed: 6/4/2009
	Appeal from the Order June 10, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil Division at No. 20248 of 2006.
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Amy Marie Gianvito (Mother) appeals the order entered on June 10, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, that granted the custody modification petition filed by Richard Gianvito (Father), which vested in Father primary physical custody of Elizabeth Ann Gianvito (Child), the parties’ minor daughter. On appeal, Mother asserts that Father failed to prove that Child’s best interests would be served by shifting primary physical custody to Father. Upon review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - IN THE INTEREST OF: D.P., MINOR IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M., MINOR IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M.

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.P., MINOR IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M., MINOR IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M. No. 1443, 1444, 1445 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 86 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 1221 Filed: 5/6/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered July 10, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Juvenile Division, at No. 1012 of 2005, 1013 of 2005, 1014 of 2005 Formerly CP-36-DR-00000597-2005.
Before: PANELLA, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant, A.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the dispositional order in dependency proceedings which changed the permanency goal for Mother’s three male children, D.P. (D.O.B. 2/2/94), D.M. (D.O.B. 12/23/95), and J.M. (D.O.B. 3/9/98) (collectively, “Children”). The Children were previously adjudicated dependent pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq. In the order on appeal, the trial court changed the goal for the family from reunification to adoption, and ordered a concurrent permanency goal of “placement in another planned living arrangement intended to be permanent.” We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES

ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES No. 763, 1023 and 1026 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 40 Atlantic: 967 A.2d 1024 Filed: 3/10/2009
	Appeal from the Orderd Entered April 8, 2008 and May 16, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No. 05-1250 C.D.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
In these consolidated appeals Nancy Gates (“Mother”) appeals (1) an April 8, 2008 order, wherein the trial court, inter alia, directed her to execute a consent to release records of her psychiatric treatment to Andrew Gates (“Father”); and (2) a May 16, 2008 order finding Mother in contempt for failing to comply with the April 8, 2008 order and summarily suspending her custodial rights to the parties’ son, Jonathan. Upon review, we reverse the April 8, 2008 order in part, and we vacate the May 16, 2008 order.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - DAVID T. YATES v. JACKIE YATES

DAVID T. YATES v. JACKIE YATES No. 696 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 296 Atlantic: 963 A.2d 535 Filed: 12/31/2008
	Appeal from the Order Entered February 15, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Domestic Relations Division, at No. A06-02-63378-C.
Before: BOWES and PANELLA, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
David Yates (“Father”) appeals from the custody order entered on February 15, 2007, wherein the trial court granted shared legal custody of Ashley Yates to Father and Jackie Yates (“Mother”), awarded Father primary physical custody, and appointed a parenting coordinator to help the parties implement the custody order. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 8/27/08 - B.T.W., ON BEHALF OF T.L., A MINOR v. P.J.L.

B.T.W., ON BEHALF OF T.L., A MINOR v. P.J.L.
No. 1337 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 199 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/27/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 28, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Civil No. 2007-40075
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (PFA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-17, precluding any contact between Appellant/stepmother and her stepdaughter, T.L., for a period of three years. We affirm, finding that the trial court’s jurisdiction over Appellant, a resident of Maryland, and over the subject matter of the action is conferred by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482, despite commission of the abusive acts in a forum other than Pennsylvania. We also find that Appellant’s conduct constituted abuse, not permissible corporal punishment for misbehavior.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


Appellant presents two issues on appeal, challenging both the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear Appellee’s petition, and the sufficiency of evidence of abuse to warrant entry of a PFA order. We note that “in a PFA action, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050, 1054-55 (Pa. Super. 2007).

The first claim presented rests on the assertion that although the trial court was possessed of personal jurisdiction over Appellant even as a nonresident through the medium of the custody order, subject matter jurisdiction was not conferred by that or any other means. In so doing she asserts that “the question is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to apply the statutory laws of Pennsylvania to these parties where the subject matter is not related to a custody issue, and where the alleged harm or injury occurred outside of Pennsylvania.” (Appellant’s Brief at 13). Appellant’s argument fails as the major premise of her syllogism is faulty.

As Appellant concedes, “[e]xclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over child custody matters is conferred by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a) on the court which has made an initial custody determination, and endures until the child’s connection with the Commonwealth is severed. Since Appellee, the partial custodian, resides in Pennsylvania, the nexus between T.L., Appellant, and the Commonwealth remains intact.

Superior Court 7/30/08 - JOHN E. HOPKINS, JR. v. SONYA F. BYES

JOHN E. HOPKINS, JR. v. SONYA F. BYES
No. 1544 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 172 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/30/2008
Appeal from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Domestic Relations Division, No(s): 14661-1998
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Sonya F. Byes, mother of the parties’ minor son, DOB 12/28/97, appeals from the July 24, 2007, Order finding her in contempt on the basis she interfered with child custody by ignoring a visitation Order. As a sanction, the court also assessed mother attorney’s fees totaling $500. By Order entered in this Court on February 29, 2008, this matter was remanded for preparation of a trial court Opinion and to allow supplementation of the record by the parties. The trial court complied on May 28, 2008, and we thereafter allowed the parties time within which to respond. Appellant complied on June 3, 2008; appellee, whose brief was due ten days hence on June 13, 2008, has not responded. The appeal is now ripe for our review.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


When considering an appeal from an Order holding a party in
contempt for failure to comply with a court Order, our scope of review is
narrow: we will reverse only upon a showing the court abused its discretion.
Hyle v. Hyle, 868 A.2d 601 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 727,
890 A.2d 1059 (2005). The court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the
law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Id. To be in
contempt, a party must have violated a court Order, and the complaining
party must satisfy that burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

¶ 4 Attorney fees may be assessed as a sanction for the contemnor’s
refusal to comply with a court Order, causing the innocent party to incur fees
in an effort to obtain what was rightfully his. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503,
Right of participants to receive counsel fees; Rhoades v. Pryce, 874
A.2d 148 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 587 Pa. 724, 899 A.2d 1124
(2006) (holding attorney fees may be awarded as a sanction to compensate
the contemnor's adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor's
noncompliance with a court Order); see also Goodman v. Goodman, 556
A.2d 1379 (Pa.Super. 1989), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 642, 565 A.2d 1167
(1989).

Superior Court 7/23/08 - B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K.

B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K.
No. 1937 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 164 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/23/2008
Appeal from the Order October 5, 2007,In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County,Civil Division at No. 01-891 CD.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant B.K.B. appeals the order denying his petition to intervene on grounds that the trial court erred in doing so based upon the doctrine of paternity by estoppel; that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to hear DNA evidence to establish Appellant as the biological father of K.J.K., the minor-child; and that the trial court erred in failing to acknowledge that Appellee M.M.K. engaged in fraud or misrepresentation regarding the parentage of K.J.K. (d.o.b. 5/4/97). We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 7/15/08 - P.T. & K.T. v. M.H.

P.T. & K.T. v. M.H.
No. 900 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 155 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/15/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 13, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Court Division, No. FD 99-003698-005.
Before: BENDER, BOWES, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Appellants, P.T. and K.T., appeal the order dated April 13, 2007, and entered April 16, 2007, wherein the trial court denied their motion for standing to file a complaint for custody pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5303 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Division, but granted standing in an ongoing dependency proceeding in juvenile court. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


On appeal, Appellants raise the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the [Family Division] trial court erred in denying Appellants’ Motion for Standing to file their Complaint for Primary Custody of [A.H.]?

2. Whether the [Family Division] trial court erred in not informing Appellants of their right to counsel and not appointing counsel for Appellants for all proceedings related to their legal status in relation to Child and otherwise when Appellants allege that they were legal custodians and stood in loco parentis to Child?

¶ 7 We first address our appellate jurisdiction. Mother and CYF both
challenge whether the Family Division trial court’s order was an appealable
final order under Pa.R.A.P. 341. Mother and CYF discuss the order in the
context of the underlying dependency proceeding. Mother asserts, “The
April 13, 2007 order does nothing more than oblige [Appellants] to litigate
their custody claim as part of the ongoing dependency proceedings.”
Mother’s brief at 7. Similarly, CYF posits, “The order does not dispose of
[Appellant’s] custody claims, it merely requires [Appellants] to litigate those
claims in the dependency proceeding in Juvenile Court.” CYF brief at 8.
¶ 8 We disagree with both contentions because each ignores that the order
being appealed was not entered in the dependency case. Rather, the order
appealed herein was entered in response to Appellants’ motion for in loco
parentis standing to file a custody complaint in the Family Division action.
While Appellants did participate in the dependency action, albeit on a limited
basis, they never sought to intervene in those proceedings. Simply stated,
the April 13, 2007 order effectively dismissed Appellants’ custody complaint,
precluded them from litigating their custody claim, and confined Appellants
to participation in the dependency proceeding’s dispositional stage. As the
April 13, 2007 order did, in fact, dispose of Appellants’ custody claim filed in
the Family Division, we find that the order is final.3 Cf. Carpenter v.
Carpenter, 474 A.2d 1124, 1126 (Pa.Super. 1984) (since order vacating
earlier award of temporary custody and staying custody proceedings on
ground that Massachusetts court was already exercising its jurisdiction, the
appellant was precluded from litigating the case in Pennsylvania, and order
appealed was a final order). Thus, the appeal is proper.

Superior Court 7/14/08 - DARWIN OTTOLINI v. MELINDA S. BARRETT

DARWIN OTTOLINI v. MELINDA S. BARRETT
No. 1234 WDA 207 2008 PA Super 154 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/14/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 1154 of 2003
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Father, Darwin Ottolini, appeals the June 4, 2007, Order granting mother, Melinda S. Barrett, primary custody over the couple’s two minor children, Derek (DOB 12/17/1997) and Dalton (DOB 08/25/2001).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


¶ 7 Father raises the following assignments of error:

1. Did the court abuse its discretion in denying counsel, and thus [father], [the opportunity] to be present and an opportunity to participate in interviewing the two children in question; and further, not making the interview a part of the record
so that counsel could be fully aware of what was exactly stated in the interview?

2. Did the court abuse its discretion in considering Dr. Addis’ report even though the report was not entered into evidence, nor was Dr. Addis called as a witness; and that [father] objected to Dr. Addis’ report being admitted into evidence absent the
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Addis?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion by not preparing and filing findings of fact?

4. Did the court abuse its discretion by not giving proper weight to the evidence?

Our standard of review over a custody order is for a gross abuse of discretion. A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744, 746-747 (Pa.Super. 2008). If a trial court, in reaching its conclusion, overrides or misapplies the law or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or reaches a conclusion that is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will as shown by the evidence of record, then discretion is abused. Bonawits v. Bonawits, 907 A.2d 611, 614 (Pa.Super. 2006). Our scope of review over custody disputes is broad; this Court is not bound by the deductions and inferences the trial court derives from its findings of fact, nor must we accept the trial court’s findings of fact when these findings are not supported by competent evidence of record. A.J.B., supra at 746-747. Our paramount concern in child custody matters is the best interests of the children. Id. at 747.

Superior Court 6/3/08 - LISA BILLHIME v. DARIN BILLHIME

LISA BILLHIME v. DARIN BILLHIME
No. 1134 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 121 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 15, 2007, Court of Common, Montour County, Civil Division at No. 2004-CV-135.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
(“Mother”) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County denying her motion to relinquish jurisdiction in this custody action to the state of Florida. After careful review, we reverse and remand.

......are the parents of twin boys born in Orlando, Florida on December 3, 1996. The family remained in Florida until 2001, when they relocated to Montour County, Pennsylvania. Mother
and Father separated in early 2004, at which time a custody action was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County. The trial court subsequently awarded primary physical custody of the children to the Mother and partial physical custody to the Father. In March 2005, Mother and the children moved back to Orlando, Florida, where they continue to live at this
time. Following the relocation to Florida, the trial court modified the custodial arrangement, with Mother retaining primary physical custody but permitting Father to enjoy custody during the boys’ spring, Thanksgiving and Christmas vacations, as well as nearly all of their summer vacation.

Unfortunately, the transition to this custodial schedule proved difficult and multiple petitions for contempt were filed and adjudicated in the trial court in Montour County. On June 8, 2006, Father filed a petition with the trial court seeking primary custody of the children. On February 28, 2007, Mother responded by filing a motion requesting that the trial court relinquish jurisdiction over this child custody action to the Circuit Court for the 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction, ruling that “[c]ontinuing jurisdiction over the custody case above captioned shall remain with the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Order,
6/15/07. In its written opinion dated June 19, 2007, the trial court explained that it denied Mother’s motion because “there exists evidence that 1 In July 2004, Mother filed a Petition to Relocate to Florida with the children. The trial court denied the Petition, but in March 2005 this Court reversed that decision, permitting the relocation of Mother and children to Florida.

This timely appeal followed. In accordance with our standard of review, this Court will not disturb a decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282, 285 (Pa. Super. 2005). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court has overridden or misapplied the law, when its judgment is manifestly unreasonable, or when there is insufficient evidence of record to support the court's findings. Id. Based on our careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and that its decision to deny Mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction must be reversed.

In its written opinion, the trial court found that it retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify custody orders in this case pursuant to section 5422(a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5401 et seq. Section 5422(a) provides as follows:

§ 5422. Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction
(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 longer available in this Commonwealth concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships;
(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.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a).

Subsection 5422(a)(1) thus provides that the courts of this Commonwealth will exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify child custody orders originally entered here unless the child, or a child and at least one parent (or a person acting as a parent), no longer have a
“significant connection” with Pennsylvania. For the child, the lack of a continuing “significant connection” with the Commonwealth is established if the court finds that substantial evidence concerning the child’s “care, protection, training and personal relationships” is no longer available here.

In denying mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction, the trial court relied almost exclusively on Father’s continuing “significant connection” with Pennsylvania. The trial court found that Father is the fifth-generation owner of a farm in Montour County, retains a Pennsylvania driver’s license, has an active equitable distribution action pending in the local court, and enjoys the majority of visitation time with his children in the state. Trial Court Opinion, 6/19/07, at 2.

In contrast, however, the trial court’s opinion does not focus in any detail on whether the children continue to maintain a “significant connection” to Pennsylvania, noting only that the boys visit here on three occasions per year and spend time with their father, friends and paternal grandfather. Trial Court Opinion, 6/19/07, at 2-3. A review of the record of the evidentiary hearing reveals that little evidence was introduced regarding the continuing availability in Pennsylvania of “substantial evidence concerning the child’s “care, protection, training and personal relationships,” as is expressly required by section 5422(a)(1) of the UCCJEA.

In fact, essentially all of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing demonstrates that information relating to the children’s welfare is now located in the state of Florida....

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/29/2008 - KEVIN HOGRELIUS v. HILARY MARTIN

KEVIN HOGRELIUS v. HILARY MARTIN
No. 2349 EDA 207 2008 PA Super 111 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/29/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on August 17, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Civil Division, No. 05-03568
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BOWES AND COLVILLE,* JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Kevin Hogrelius (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on August 17, 2007, permitting Hilary Martin (“Mother”) to relocate with the parties’ daughter, Alisia Marie Hogrelius, from Chester County to McLean, Virginia. We affirm.


With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa.Super. 2005). This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all of the factors that may legitimately affect the “physical, intellectual, moral and
spiritual well-being” of the child. Id. (citations omitted). As we previously explained, “[t]here is no black letter formula that easily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.” Baldwin v. Baldwin, 710 A.2d 610, 614 (Pa.Super. 1998).

Father’s appeal challenges the trial court’s determination pursuant to Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa.Super. 1990), that Mother demonstrated relocation was in Alisia’s best interest. First, Father asserts that relocation would not substantially improve Alisia’s quality of life. Next,
Father argues that Mother’s proposed alternative custody arrangements are inadequate. For the following reasons, we disagree with both contentions.

As this Court recently reiterated, “[W]hen a custody case includes a request by one of the parents to relocate with the child, then the best interest analysis must incorporate the three factors originally summarized in Gruber[.]” Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724, 728 (Pa.Super. 2007). Those factors consider:

(1) the potential advantages of the proposed move and the
likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality
of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the
result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent;

(2) the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and
noncustodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to
prevent it; [and]

(3) the availability of realistic, substitute visitation
arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing
relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.

Id. (quoting Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa.Super. 2006)).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 4/30/08 - N.H.M. v. P.O.T

N.H.M. v. P.O.T
No. 1545 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 90 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil at No(s): 4913 CV 2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
N.H.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the August 23, 2007 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ minor children, G.M.T., a male, and H.M.T., a female, (collectively “the children”) to P.O.T. (“Father”). We affirm.

Superior Court 3/12/2008 - A.J.B. v. M.P.B.

A.J.B. v. M.P.B.
No. 14 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 39 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/12/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No. 2004-198
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
A.J.B. (Father) appeals from the order dated December 18, 2006, and entered on December 19, 2006, wherein the trial court denied his petition to modify an existing custody order. We affirm.

In this appeal Father presented the following questions:

1. Did the [trial] court err in accepting the testimony of Ms. Reisman, a Ph.D. in Media Sciences, who had never seen either party, was not a psychologist and had never received any
training in that field?
2. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion by blatantly disregarding findings of the independent psychologist and the father’s psychiatrist when no evidence was offered to contradict either expert?
3. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion in finding that the father’s conduct violated his prior order by not providing up to the minute information on where the father was with the
child and finding that the father taking the child to local parks did not constitute public places as ordered by the court?