Dodson v. Stroud, PICS Case No. 17-1381 (C.P. Berks Aug. 14, 2017) Lash, J. (9 pages).
While Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the parties' two children who lived in North Carolina with their mother, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over this custody dispute because North Carolina, where the children received significant medical care, was the more appropriate forum. The court granted mother's preliminary objection.
September 22, 2017 at 02:29 PM
3 minute read
Custody Dispute • Jurisdiction • Home State Status
Dodson v. Stroud, PICS Case No. 17-1381 (C.P. Berks Aug. 14, 2017) Lash, J. (9 pages).
While Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the parties' two children who lived in North Carolina with their mother, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over this custody dispute because North Carolina, where the children received significant medical care, was the more appropriate forum. The court granted mother's preliminary objection.
Mother and father are the natural parents of twin sons born in April 2016. The children were born in Berks County and resided there with their parents until early November 2016. At that point, the family chose to move to North Carolina because mother's brother offered an attractive rent-to-own agreement. However, the parties separated on March 18, and father chose to move back to Pennsylvania. He took up residence in Lancaster County, where his parents lived. Father then filed a complaint seeking primary custody of the children. He also filed an emergency petition for special relief. Mother, who continued to reside in North Carolina with the children, filed a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania court. She sought to transfer the case to North Carolina. The court noted that Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the children under Section 5421 (a)(1) the Pennsylvania Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCJEA). This statute provides that Pennsylvania is the home state of a child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from the state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in Pennsylvania. Thus, Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over the children. Pennsylvania's home state status was not affected by the fact that the children lived in North Carolina at the commencement of the proceedings, the court observed. “Under the law, it is preferred that the home state assume jurisdiction,” the opinion stated. However, the court found that under the circumstances of this case, Pennsylvania was an inconvenient forum and that the case should be heard in North Carolina. While father's North Carolina residency was short-lived, the parties chose to move to North Carolina together, the court noted. Significantly, the children were born prematurely and required certain medical care. Mother had in place the necessary pediatric and physical therapy in North Carolina. While father pledged to provide similar care in Lancaster County, most of the medical care had taken place in North Carolina. To the extent evidence would be required from health care professional, North Carolina would provide a more convenient forum. The court determined that other relevant factors under the statute were not germane, as both parties were of relatively modest financial means and they would have to travel for hearings regardless. The court also considered that neither party, nor the children had any current ties to Berks County. As such, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and concluded that North Carolina was the more appropriate forum for this matter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readState Supreme Court Clarifies Special Immigrant Juvenile Practice in Pa.
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250