Lucas v. Lucas
Citation | 882 A.2d 523 |
Parties | Janet Cottone LUCAS, Appellant, v. Curt LUCAS, Appellee. |
Decision Date | 23 August 2005 |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Brian J. Cali, Dunmore, for appellant.
Jan Kuha, Dickson City, for appellee.
Before: MUSMANNO, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
OPINION BY TAMILIA, J.:
¶ 1 Janet Lucas appeals the October 25, 2004 Order granting appellee Curt Lucas' motion to strike the special relief Order of July 26, 2004. The special relief Order granted to appellant custody of the parties' two minor children, prohibited appellee's removal of the children from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without further Order of court, and held that a hearing on the matter would be conducted on August 17, 2004.
¶ 2 On August 9, 2004, appellee filed the motion to strike the July 26, 2004 special relief Order. The motion indicated that on July 19, 2004, appellee filed a complaint in divorce in the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Summit County, Ohio, and, on that same date, that court entered a mutual restraining Order in connection with the proceeding. The restraining Order indicated that a local rule of Summit County, Ohio, prohibited either party from changing or establishing a new residence for the minor children without the written consent of the other party or permission of the court.1 Appellant received a copy of the Order after the special relief Order had been granted.
¶ 3 On September 14, 2004, a hearing was held on appellee's motion to strike. Appellee did not appear at the hearing, but he was represented by counsel. The court found that credible evidence established the following:
Trial Court Opinion, O'Malley, J., 10/25/04, at 2-4.2 The court then went on to conclude the following:
¶ 4 This timely appeal followed in which appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the evidence before the trial court was such to justify the trial court striking and vacating its Special Relief Order of July 26, 2004, and declining jurisdiction despite the trial court finding that the minor children were physically present in the Commonwealth and the minor children were abandoned by their father in Ohio?
Appellant's brief at 6. Appellant argues that she changed her residence to Pennsylvania on July 6, 2004 and husband filed the divorce action in Ohio on July 19, 2004. Therefore, she did not violate the July 19, 2004 restraining Order which prohibited either party from changing residences without the written consent of the other party or permission of court. She also contends that the criteria for jurisdiction set forth in UCCJA § 5344 are met since (1) the record establishes that, pursuant to UCCJA § 5344(a)(2), mother and children have a significant connection with this Commonwealth and therefore it is in the children's best interest for the Commonwealth to assume jurisdiction, and substantial evidence is available in this Commonwealth as to the children's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; and because (2) the children were abandoned by father pursuant to UCCJA § 5344(a)(3).
A court's decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Under Pennsylvania law, 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. An abuse of discretion requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures.
McCoy v. Thresh, 862 A.2d 109, 112 (Pa.Super.2004) (citations omitted).
¶ 5 The parties do not dispute the trial court's finding that the UCCJA is applicable to this case. We agree with this conclusion. UCCJA Section 5344, Jurisdiction, provided, in pertinent part:
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5344(a). The clear language of the statute indicates that the bases for jurisdiction thereunder are alternative. Jurisdiction under the Act may be based on "home state jurisdiction," "significant contacts,"5 or "parens patriae" jurisdiction for those emergency situations where a child is abandoned, abused, or dependent. Tettis v. Boyum, 317 Pa.Super. 8, 463 A.2d 1056, 1059 (1983); see also Shaw v. Shaw, 719 A.2d 359, 360 (Pa.Super.1998); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5344. The "home state" is the preferred basis for jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJA. McCoy, supra, at 113, citing Dincer v. Dincer, 549 Pa. 309, 701 A.2d 210 (1997). Section 5343 defined "home state" in relevant part as: "The state in which the child immediately preceding the time involved lived with his parents, a parent or a person acting as parent, or in an institution, for at least six consecutive months...." 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5343. There can be no question that the "home state" here is Ohio. The children had lived in Ohio for their entire lives and had resided in Pennsylvania for approximately one week when this action was filed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions
...to exercise or decline jurisdiction [under the UCCJEA] is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review....’ "), quoting Lucas v. Lucas, 882 A.2d 523, ¶ 4 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005). Consequently, this is not a question of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction and the challenge was waived.......
-
B.A.B. v. J.J.B., 1804 MDA 2016
...the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. J.K. v. W.L.K., 102 A.3d 511, 513 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Lucas v. Lucas , 882 A.2d 523, 527 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, as with all custody orders, "[w]e must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evid......
-
Wagner v. Wagner
...clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. Lucas v. Lucas, 2005 PA Super 301, 4, 882 A.2d 523 (citation ¶ 13 We note that this case presents this Court with an appeal from a modification of a child custody order. All pa......
-
A.L.-S. v. B.S.
...clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures.Lucas v. Lucas, 882 A.2d 523, 527 (Pa.Super.2005) (citation omitted). See also J.K., supra; J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 902, 908 (Pa.Super.2010). Based on our careful review of the r......