M.M. v. J.M.

J-A12028-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
J.M. : No. 1583 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s):
Case No. 18-90407-C
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 03, 2019
M.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the October 4, 2018 Order entered in the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas, which denied Mother’s Petition for
Special Relief and found that Alaska retains jurisdiction to make
determinations regarding her child custody case with J.M. (“Father”). Upon
careful review, we affirm.
We glean the following factual and procedural history from the certified
record. Mother and Father are parents to two minor children, N.M. (born June
2005) and W.M. (born April 2007) (collectively “Children”). The child custody
proceedings commenced in Alaska in 2015. On May 17, 2017, upon
agreement by the parties, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska issued a
Final Custody Order awarding Mother and Father joint legal custody of
Children, Mother primary physical custody in Pennsylvania during the school
J-A12028-19
year, and Father partial physical custody in Alaska during the summer months.
Final Custody Order, 5/17/17, at ¶ 1, 2.
On June 28, 2018, Father filed a Motion to Modify Custody in the Alaska
court seeking primary physical custody. In response, on July 6, 2018, Mother
filed a Complaint for Custody in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County,
Pennsylvania.
On July 9, 2018, Father filed a motion in the Alaska court asserting that
jurisdiction should remain in Alaska, which Mother opposed. On July 17, 2018,
Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief in Pennsylvania requesting “that
jurisdiction for the [custody] case be changed to Pennsylvania, indefinitely.”
Petition for Special Relief, 7/17/18, at ¶ 8.
On August 8, 2018, the Alaska court held that, pursuant to the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), Alaska continues
to have exclusive jurisdiction regarding the custody of Children and found that
“children continue to have significant connection to the state of Alaska and
that substantial evidence regarding the children continues to exist in Alaska.”
Order Denying Change of Jurisdiction, 8/8/18, at ¶ 1. Mother did not appeal
this Order. On September 4, 2018, the Alaska court denied Father’s Motion
to Modify Custody.
On October 4, 2018, after a hearing, the Pennsylvania court denied
Mother’s Petition for Special Relief and found that “Alaska is the appropriate
jurisdiction to determine issues regarding custody of [Children].” Order of the
Court, 10/4/18. Father filed a Motion to Dismiss Mother’s Complaint for
-2-
J-A12028-19
Custody on October 9, 2018, which the Pennsylvania court granted the same
day by operation of law.
Mother timely appealed. Mother and the trial court both complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Issues on Appeal
Mother raises the following issues on appeal:
1. The trial court erred when it narrowly applied [the UCCJEA]
adopted in Pennsylvania at [23 Pa.C.S. § 5423,] without
considering the initial determination that needs to be made under
[23 Pa.C.S. § 5421](a)(1) or (2).
2. The trial court erred when it did not apply [23 Pa.C.S. § 5422(b)]
in this case and did not find that an initial determination of
jurisdiction was apparent under [§ 5421.]
3. The trial court further erred when it misapplied the case of
[Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008)] and
inaccurately determined that the significant connection that
[Children] have had with Pennsylvania for approximately two (2)
years is not enough to relinquish Alaska of its jurisdiction to
Pennsylvania.
Mother’s Br. at 7 (reordered for ease of disposition).
Legal Analysis
In each issue she raises on appeal, Mother challenges the trial court’s
finding that Alaska retains subject matter jurisdiction over this custody case.
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, for which
our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. B.L. v
T.B., 152 A.3d 1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2016). Here, the UCCJEA governs the
issue of subject matter jurisdiction, requiring us to engage in statutory
-3-
J-A12028-19
interpretation in the context of the facts of the instant case. 1 When
ascertaining the meaning of a statute, if the language is clear, we give the
words their plain and ordinary meaning. Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514, 517
(Pa. 2013). We are guided by the principle that “the General Assembly does
not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.”
See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1).
Mother’s first two issues, in which she avers that the trial court erred in
its application of the UCCJEA, are inextricably related. First, she contends that
Section 5423, which, inter alia, prohibits Pennsylvania from modifying a
custody determination made by another state unless that state relinquishes
jurisdiction, does not govern her Complaint for Custody in Pennsylvania.
Mother argues that she seeks an initial custody determination under Section
5421, which provides jurisdictional requirements for commencing custody
proceedings in Pennsylvania, rather than a modification under Section 5423.
See Mother’s Br. at 12; 23 Pa.C.S. § 5421. Second, she contends that
because her Complaint satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of Section
5421, Pennsylvania may exercise exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under
Section 5422.2 Id.
____________________________________________
1In 2004, the Pennsylvania General Assembly adopted the UCCJEA and the
accompanying comments. S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402, 409 n.8 (Pa. Super.
2014).
2 This argument contradicts Mother’s own Complaint for Custody, which
requested that the court “honor the current custody order in Alaska” while
granting “additional requests for modification of the current order.” Complaint
for Custody, at ¶ 12.
-4-
J-A12028-19
Mother’s argument that Section 5421 governs her Custody Complaint is
unavailing, and her intention as to the nature of her Complaint is irrelevant.
Section 5421 controls “the original child custody proceeding.” 23 Pa.C.S. §
5421 cmt. Section 5421 provides, in relevant part, that “a court of this
Commonwealth has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination
only if . . . a court of another state does not have jurisdiction[.]” 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 5421(a)(2) (emphasis added).
First, Mother’s Complaint does not seek an initial custody
determination. Rather, the initial custody determination occurred when the
Alaska Court issued the 2017 Final Custody Order. Second, as Mother
concedes in her Brief, Alaska retains jurisdiction pursuant to the August 8,
2018 Order, which found that Alaska continues to have exclusive jurisdiction
regarding the custody of Children. Mother’s Br. at 7, 10; Order Denying
Change of Jurisdiction, 8/8/2018. Accordingly, Section 5421 does not govern
Mother’s Complaint for Custody filed in Pennsylvania.
Instead, Mother necessarily seeks a modification of custody, and the
requirements of Section 5423 govern Mother’s complaint. This Court has held
that Section 5423 controls Pennsylvania courts’ capacity to assert jurisdiction
over a custody determination when another state previously has exercised
jurisdiction. See B.L. v. T.B., 152 A.3d at 1017, (holding that Section 5423
required Pennsylvania to enforce an initial custody determination previously
made in Texas pursuant to the UCCJEA); V.C. v. L.P., 179 A.3d 95, 98 (Pa.
Super. 2018) (finding that “the requirements of Section 5423 needed to be
-5-
J-A12028-19
satisfied” for a Pennsylvania court “to attain jurisdiction to modify the New
York court's child custody order”).
Section 5423 prohibits a modification state, here Pennsylvania, from
determining that an original decree state, here Alaska, has lost its
jurisdiction.3 See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5423; B.L., 152 A.3d at 1018; V.C., 179 A.3d
at 98. The one exception created by Section 5423(2) allows the modification
state to alter a custody order if it finds that “the child, the child's parents, and
any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other State.” 23
Pa.C.S. § 5423(2), cmt. See, e.g., T.A.M. v. S.L.M., 104 A.3d 30, 34 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (holding Pennsylvania had jurisdiction to modify a Tennessee
____________________________________________
3 In its entirety, Section 5423 provides:
§ 5423. Jurisdiction to modify determination
Except as otherwise provided in section 5424 (relating to temporary
emergency jurisdiction), a court of this Commonwealth may not modify a child
custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this
Commonwealth has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section
5421 (a)(1) or (2) (relating to initial child custody jurisdiction) and:
(1) the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction under section 5422 (relating to exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction) or that a court of this Commonwealth would be
a more convenient forum under section 5427 (relating to inconvenient
forum); or
(2) a court of this Commonwealth or a court of the other state
determines that the child, the child's parents and any person acting as
a parent do not presently reside in the other state.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5423.
-6-
J-A12028-19
custody order where the child had been living in Pennsylvania for three years
and no parent or person acting as a parent continued to reside in Tennessee).
Here, Mother concedes that Father remains in Alaska. Mother’s Br. at
11. As discussed above, Mother admits that Alaska has previously held, and
currently holds, jurisdiction. Id. at 7, 10. Alaska originally exercised custody
jurisdiction over Children, and since has found that it holds exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction over Children’s custody determination. Order Denying
Change of Jurisdiction, 8/8/2018. As such, pursuant to Section 5423, a court
of this Commonwealth may not modify the Alaska court’s child custody orders
and Mother’s first two issues are devoid of merit.
In her third issue, Mother avers that, pursuant to Billhime, Children’s
significant connection to Pennsylvania justifies a change in jurisdiction from
Alaska. Mother’s Br. at 13-15. Mother’s reliance on Billhime is misplaced.
In Billhime, a Pennsylvania court made an initial custody determination
and subsequently denied the mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction to
Florida, the state to which mother and the children had relocated. Billhime,
952 A.2d at 1175. On appeal, this Court reversed and found that the trial
court abused its discretion by holding Pennsylvania retained jurisdiction under
Section 5422. That section provides, in relevant part, that when a
Pennsylvania court “has made a child custody determination consistent with
section 5421,” that court retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until “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
-7-
J-A12028-19
connection with this Commonwealth and that substantial evidence is no longer
available in this Commonwealth.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5422(a). This Court found that
the trial court abused its discretion when it denied a mother’s motion to
relinquish jurisdiction because there was no evidence of a significant
connection to Pennsylvania. Id. at 1176.
Billihime does not inform the issues presently before the Court because
here, Alaska made the initial custody determination, not Pennsylvania. Thus,
Section 5422 does not apply and Mother’s third issue lacks merit.
Finally, we address Father’s request for counsel fees and expenses
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2744. Father’s Br. at 25. Father argues that Mother
has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure and had no jurisdictional basis for filing her Complaint for Custody
and Petition for Special Relief in Pennsylvania. Id. We agree and find this
appeal to be frivolous.
Mother attempts to inject confusion into the distinction between initial
child custody determinations governed by Section 5421 and modifications to
child custody determinations governed by Section 5423. Mother’s argument
defies the substance and very titles of these sections and ignores established
case law on the distinction, law that she fails to note entirely.4 For this reason,
we conclude that the appeal is “dilatory, obdurate, [and] vexatious” to a
____________________________________________
4 Appellant’s brief cites Billhime alone.
-8-
J-A12028-19
degree warranting sanctions. See Pa.R.A.P. 2744. Accordingly, we grant
Father’s request and remand to the trial court to calculate the amount of Rule
2744 damages, including counsel fees, that Father incurred due to Mother’s
frivolous appeal.
In sum, pursuant to Section 5423 of the UCCJEA, Alaska retains
jurisdiction over Children’s custody matter and the trial court properly denied
Mother’s Petition for Special Relief. We find Mother’s appeal to be frivolous
and grant Father’s request for counsel fees and costs pursuant to Rule 2744.
Order affirmed. Father’s request for counsel fees and costs granted.
Case remanded for calculation of amount of damages due under Pa.R.A.P.
2744. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/2019
-9-