In 2004, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA. The UCCJEA replaced the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, or UCCJA. It was believed that the UCCJEA would solve many of the problems that occurred under the UCCJA regarding child custody jurisdictional disputes. Under the UCCJA, a common problem arose when a petition was filed in a new state at a time when a custody order existed in a prior state. Thereafter, a subsequent petition would be filed in the prior state where the custody order had originated. In this instance, trouble arose because there were two jurisdictions competing for the same case. Under the UCCJEA, Section 5422 was designed to help solve this problem. Section 5422 is titled: “Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction.” Pursuant to Section 5422(a): “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 initial child custody jurisdiction) or 5423 (relating to jurisdiction to modify determination) has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until” one of two instances occurs. The first instance is when the court determines that neither the child nor the child and one parent/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. The second instance is when the court of this commonwealth or a court in another state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this commonwealth.

The recent case of Billhime v. Billhime addresses exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Until Billhime , most practitioners believed that when applying Section 5422(a)(1) of the UCCJEA as long as one parent remained in the state where the custody order was issued jurisdiction would remain with that state. However, Billhime may change that belief.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]