## Facts

- Divorced parents had twin sons born in Florida in 1996.
- The family moved from Florida to Montour County, Pennsylvania in 2001.
- After separation in 2004, a Pennsylvania court awarded Mother primary physical custody and Father partial physical custody.
- In March 2005, Mother and the children relocated to Orlando, Florida with court approval.
- Post-relocation, the Pennsylvania court modified custody to give Father extensive periods of custody in Pennsylvania during holidays and much of summer.
- The children’s daily life was based in Florida: school, church, extracurricular activities, medical providers, friends, and community ties.
- The children maintained relationships in Pennsylvania through extended visitation with Father and connections to family and friends there.
- Ongoing conflict led to multiple contempt proceedings in Pennsylvania.
- Father later filed in Pennsylvania for primary custody; Mother moved to have Pennsylvania relinquish jurisdiction to Florida.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Pennsylvania’s UCCJEA, the Pennsylvania court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when the children and custodial parent had lived in Florida for years and most current evidence about the children’s welfare was located there.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction to Florida.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order refusing to relinquish jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion in finding a sufficient “significant connection” and adequate “substantial evidence” in Pennsylvania to support exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.
- The court directed Pennsylvania to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of Florida.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, the decree state retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction only until a court determines that:
  - the child and at least one parent no longer have a significant connection with the state and substantial evidence about the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships is no longer available there; or
  - the child and both parents no longer reside in the state.
- “Significant connection” focuses on the child’s ongoing, day-to-day life and relationships, not merely periodic visitation in the decree state.
- “Substantial evidence” is assessed by where current information about the child’s welfare is concentrated (e.g., school, medical care, community and social relationships).
- A custody-jurisdiction ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, including misapplication of the UCCJEA standards or findings unsupported by the record.
- When another state has become the child’s home state and contains most current evidence relevant to custody, the decree state should relinquish jurisdiction to avoid conflicting interstate custody proceedings.

## Conclusion

Because the children’s primary life activities and the bulk of current evidence concerning their welfare were in Florida, Pennsylvania no longer satisfied the UCCJEA requirements for exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, and the custody dispute had to proceed in Florida.


Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)