Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 5423. Jurisdiction to modify determination.
Except as otherwise provided in section 5424 (relating to temporary emergency jurisdiction),
a court of this Commonwealth may not modify a child custody determination made by
a court of another state unless a court of this Commonwealth has jurisdiction to make
an initial determination under section 5421(a)(1) or (2) (relating to initial child
custody jurisdiction) and:
(1) the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction
under section 5422 (relating to exclusive, continuing jurisdiction) or that a court
of this Commonwealth would be a more convenient forum under section 5427 (relating
to inconvenient forum); or
(2) a court of this Commonwealth or a court of the other state determines that the child,
the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the
other state.
Cross References. Section 5423 is referred to in sections 5210, 5422, 5424, 5428 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case:
Jmr v. Jm, 1 A.3d 902 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
Jmr v. Jm, 1 A.3d 902 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. ¶ 14 Accordingly, as directed by 23 Pa.”
A.l.-s. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to accept jurisdiction pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5423 as the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 5421 and there is no dispute that the parties reside in…”
B.L. v. T.B., 152 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. Here, there is no indication in the record that the Texas court was notified about the pendency of the present action, let alone that it had ruled that Texas no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Pennsylvania would be a more convenient forum.”
B.A.B. v. J.J.B., 166 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5423(1). The focus of both Mother’s petition to transfer jurisdiction and venue, as well as the September 2016 hearing, was on the inconvenient forum factors listed in Section 5427(b).”
T.A.M. v. S.L.M., 104 A.3d 30 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5423 (Comment) (emphasis added).”
J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. ¶ 14 Accordingly, as directed by 23 Pa.”
M.M. v. J.M., No. 1583 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 3, 2019).
· cites it 3× “The trial court erred when it narrowly applied [the UCCJEA] adopted in Pennsylvania at [23 Pa.C.S. § 5423,] without considering the initial determination that needs to be made under [23 Pa.”
J.J. v. S.G.G., No. 3825 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 10, 2018).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. As the plain language of § 5423 demonstrates, a trial court in Pennsylvania may modify a custody order entered by a court of a different state if it determines that it has jurisdiction to render an initial child custody determination pursuant to § 5421(a)(1)…”
T.A.M. v. S.L.M. & D.M.S., No. 844 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 7, 2014).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 5423 (emphasis added; footnote added).”
Lowery-Shannon v. Shannon, 42 Pa. D. & C.5th 526 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2014).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. §5423. Therefore, pursuant to 23 Pa.”
B.L. v. T.B. & F.L., No. 828 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2016).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. Here, there is no indication in the record that the Texas court was notified about the pendency of the present action, let alone that it had ruled that Texas no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Pennsylvania would be a more convenient forum.”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5423(1): 7 cases
B.A.B. v. J.J.B., 166 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5423(1). The focus of both Mother’s petition to transfer jurisdiction and venue, as well as the September 2016 hearing, was on the inconvenient forum factors listed in Section 5427(b).”
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5423(2): 1 case
J.J. v. S.G.G., No. 3825 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 10, 2018).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. As the plain language of § 5423 demonstrates, a trial court in Pennsylvania may modify a custody order entered by a court of a different state if it determines that it has jurisdiction to render an initial child custody determination pursuant to § 5421(a)(1)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.