Michael Bertin Analyzes UCCJEA Jurisdiction in an International Custody Dispute

In his February 03, 2026, article for The Legal Intelligencer titled “Exclusive Continuing Jurisdiction in Child Custody Examined by Superior Court,” Michael Bertin, partner and co-chair of the family law group and co-author of the book Pennsylvania Child Custody Law, Practice, and Procedure, reviews the recent case of OMalley v. Isquierdo, 345 A.3d 321 (Pa. Super. 2025). The case arose after the parties filed for custody in Montgomery County, traveled to Brazil, and the mother remained there with the child while the father returned to the United States. Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision addresses how initial jurisdiction and exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) interact when all parties and the child leave the state that issued the initial order. 

When a party files a petition to modify custody, only a court with “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” may modify the order. A state that has issued a child custody order retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction where at least one parent or the child or a person acting as a parent continues to reside in the state. 

Although Pennsylvania initially lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when neither parent nor the child remained in the state, the Superior Court held that Pennsylvania could still exercise jurisdiction because Brazil, the only state or country that has jurisdiction as the child’s home state under the UCCJEA, declined jurisdiction and found the mother had wrongfully retained the child under the Hague Convention. The court emphasized that a parent should not benefit from wrongful forum shopping and ruled that Pennsylvania retained jurisdiction, vacated the trial court’s order, and remanded the case.