I wanted to write about this case J.S. v. R.S.S., 2018 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 218, because it is so scandalous that it deserved a post all on its own. The case is predominantly about how the Court applied the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482. The short form is that the father was a Hungarian and met and married an American woman and had children. The father then took one of the children and concocted a story in order to keep the custody of the child away from the mother. When the mother finally tired of the story and missed her child, the Father indicated that the custodial battle should occur in Hungary not Pennsylvania and the Court disagreed. The father appealed.
The parties got married in 2008 and eventually separated in 2014. During the marriage they had one child. In 2015 the father filed a Complaint in Custody and filed a Notice of Intent to return to Hungary. At a custody conference the parties agreed that the father would have primary and sole legal and physical custody of the child and agreed that the father and daughter could live in Hungary. In 2017 the mother filed a Petition to obtain more custody. Mother asserted that following entry of the custody order, and despite the previously agreed upon order, the Mother exercised primary physical custody of the Child, who resided with her at the parties’ former marital home in Hummelstown. Mother asserted that Father never relocated to Hungary and that the Child continuously resided in Pennsylvania through the date of her petitions. Mother claimed that following entry of the August 2015 custody order, she exercised physical custody for the next year or so but as time went on, the Child spent less time with her and began to reside with Father. Mother claimed that she repeatedly asked Father to return the Child and that he would promise her he would do so, but never did. Father then told her that he and the Child were in a witness protection program and he could not disclose the Child’s whereabouts. Father eventually cut off Mother from any contact with the Child, sometime in July 2016, which was the last time she saw the Child. The mother indicated that she had agreed to the father having full custody because he had spun her a yarn indicating that he and the child were in a witness protection program and he told her that he and the child were in danger.
In December 2015, while Mother and Father were still in a relationship and unbeknownst to Mother, Father married his new wife E.S. in the United States. Mother would not discover this marriage until November 2016 when their wedding announcement was published in a local paper. E.S., who is Hungarian, had been living in the U.S. for a short time on a work visa. She and Mother lived together briefly in the farmhouse in 2015, however, their relationship deteriorated and in April 2015 E.S. filed a Protection From Abuse (PFA) petition against Mother, with whom she claimed to have been sexually intimate. The same day, Mother filed a PFA petition against Father, reciting incidents of physical and emotional abuse. Less than two weeks after filing their actions, both E.S. and Mother withdrew their respective PFA petitions.
Mother eventually figured out about the marriage and left what had been the marital home and filed for custody. The Court determined that Pennsylvania maintains jurisdiction under the first prong if there existed a significant connection between the Child and Mother as of November 2017, when Mother filed her custody modification petition. A significant relationship is established where one parent resides and exercises [her] parenting time in [Pennsylvania] and maintains a meaningful relationship with the child. The Court also determined that the Father had manipulated and defrauded the mother who without the fraud would have continued to have a relationship and parental presence regarding the child. The Court called the Father deceitful.
The court found that Pennsylvania had jurisdiction. Moreover, the father had indicated that Hungary would be a more convenient forum. The court weighed the factors regarding determining the most convenient forum and indicated that Pennsylvania was the most convenient. Although the Court discussed each of the factors it appeared to weigh the fact that Mother did not have the means to fight the case in Hungary nor could she speak the language or easily travel to Europe.
The bottom line here is lying doesn’t help when it comes to custody. Moreover, the Court will not easily give up jurisdiction regarding a hearing for custody in Pennsylvania.
During the case the father indicated that he did not tell the mother where he was and allowed her to believe the story because he was afraid of her. He indicated that the mother had tried to kill him on two occasions. Father maintained business connections to Central Pennsylvania. He remained a silent partner in a Pennsylvania business.