After a mother wrongfully retains a child in Brazil, the father in New Jersey files a Hague Abduction Convention petition in Brazil, and an international custody case under the UCCJEA in Pennsylvania. But is New Jersey the home state if the child has never been there? An appellate court answers that question.

A Thrill in Brazil

The child, G.O. was born in September 2020, and lived with his parents in Pennsylvania until April 2021. Then, just before G.O. turned six months old, the parents took their child to Brazil in May 2021 for a one month vacation to see the Mother’s family.

The Father returned to the U.S, but the Mother refused to return with the child, and remained in Brazil with G.O. In July 2021, the Father filed an Emergency Petition to return G.O. from Brazil in Philadelphia. The Mother argued that she had filed for custody in Brazil.

In January 2022, the Mother filed an Emergency Petition for Custody in Pennsylvania, where they used to live, but the Father had moved to New Jersey, and had been residing there for over four months. The Pennsylvania court ruled in December 2024 that Pennsylvania no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to consider custody. The Father appealed.

Florida International Custody

I’ve written and spoken about international child custody cases under the Hague Convention and the UCCJEA before. The Hague Convention seeks to deter abducting parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

When a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another signatory country, the Hague Convention provides that the other country: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Florida and almost all U.S. states passed the UCCJEA into law. The most fundamental aspect of the UCCJEA is the approach to the jurisdiction needed to start a case. In part, the UCCJEA requires a court have some jurisdiction vis-a-vis the child.

Another important aspect of the UCCJEA is the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction. Under the UCCJEA, the state originally making a custody determination retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until it determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer have a significant connection with the state, or until any state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the decree-granting state.

Fulfilled in Brazil

On appeal, the Father argued the trial court erred when it divested itself of jurisdiction without properly considering its own prior orders affirming jurisdiction, and by disregarding the Brazilian court’s Hague Convention ruling, which determined that the U.S. is the habitual residence and the Mother’s retention in Brazil unlawful.

The purpose of the UCCJEA, the appellate court noted, is to avoid jurisdictional  competition, promote cooperation between courts, deter child abductions and facilitate the enforcement of custody orders of other states.

Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is based on the home state of the child, where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody case. When a child is six months of age or younger, home state means the state in which the child lived from birth with a parent.

Here, having found the Pennsylvania court was the home state and properly had jurisdiction, the question became did Pennsylvania lose exclusive continuing jurisdiction when the Mother, child and Father had all left the state.

However, the family court incorrectly held that Brazil had not determined a court of the United States would be the more appropriate forum. In fact, the Brazilian found that the U.S. courts were the more appropriate forum for deciding custody than Brazil.

Additionally, even if Brazil had home state jurisdiction to decide custody, under the Hague Convention, the courts in Brazil are not permitted to decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child should not be returned under the Convention.

Finally, if Pennsylvania had allowed the Mother to wrongfully retain G.O. in Brazil to create exclusive jurisdiction, the appellate court reasoned it would be rewarding the Mother for forum shopping and unjustified behavior.

The opinion is here.