The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-7412 JESSICA MOORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAMES MOORE : DEFENDANT : 10-7412 CIVIL TERM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., January 4, 2011:-- Before the court is a letter from Jessica Moore, self-represented plaintiff, requesting the court to reconsider its order of December 10, 2010. We shall consider the letter to be a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s primary contention is that defendant “is in violation of our Stipulation of Custody that was ordered in the state of Pennsylvania.” We disagree, and, to the extent that the reasoning of our previous order was unclear, we offer the following explanation in support of our denial of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. There is no dispute that on August 8, 2006, the Honorable D.G. Geary of the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas entered an order docketed at 134 Divorce 2006, granting the defendant primary physical custody of Damion James Moore, born October 4, 2004. The confusion on the part of plaintiff stems primarily from Judge Geary’s order of March 21, 2007, which amended paragraphs 8 and 9 of the August 8, 1 2006, stipulation. Plaintiff believes the amendment prohibits the defendant from leaving the Commonwealth with the child; however, this amendment focused solely on the plaintiff. Paragraph 8 of the Stipulation was amended by the March, 2007, order as follows: Plaintiff attached both Somerset County orders to her original emergency 1 petition for contempt and to her motion for reconsideration. 10-7412 CIVIL TERM Mother shall have partial physical custody of the minor child, Damion James Moore, from February 28, 2007, until Mother acknowledges and agrees April 30, 2007. that the minor child’s home state shall remain as Pennsylvania. In she shall permit, and thereby in no way this regard, interfere with, the minor’s return to Pennsylvania at the She conclusion of her period of partial physical custody. further agrees not to file any custody proceeding in any jurisdiction other than Pennsylvania. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, this Stipulation was designed to ensure that the plaintiff would return the child to the defendant who had, and continues to have, primary physical custody of the child. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s belief, nowhere does this amended order state that the child is to remain in Pennsylvania indefinitely or that the father is precluded from moving to another state. Plaintiff also attaches a copy of the Marriage Settlement Agreement dated January 24, 2007, to her motion. In addition to referencing the earlier stipulation of custody, paragraph 12 of the Agreement notes that the husband “shall be entitled to claim the minor child, Damion James Moore, as an exemption for income tax purposes.” As with the aforementioned court orders, the Agreement confirms the fact that the defendant has had primary physical custody of the child for at least the past four years. Finally, as pointed out in our order of December 10, 2010, the plaintiff filed an action for custody in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, docketed at FM-04-385-11-Y. In her certification to the New Jersey action, plaintiff specifically affirmed that “the defendant relocated to 344 Bergan Avenue, Bellmawr, New Jersey in January, 2010.” The plaintiff is no doubt displeased with the October 1, 2010 order of court by the Honorable John T. Kelley of Camden County, New Jersey, in which he -2- 10-7412 CIVIL TERM confirmed that both the primary residence of the child and the jurisdiction of this case are in New Jersey. The fact that plaintiff lives in Cumberland County in no way authorizes this court to assume jurisdiction in a county where the minor child has never resided for six weeks, let alone six months. See Pa.C.S. § 5421(a). The combination of plaintiff’s displeasure with New Jersey and her domicile in Cumberland County do not confer jurisdiction on this court. Plaintiff has submitted to New Jersey’s jurisdiction by filing the aforesaid action, appearing at a hearing on October 1, 2010, and attending a parenting session in New Jersey on October 8, 2010. The New Jersey docket also includes a “Motion Hearing” before Judge Kelley on January 21, 2011, to enforce the October 1, 2010 order. It would be contrary to law and logic for this court to usurp jurisdiction from New Jersey. Accordingly, we enter the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2011, upon consideration of IS plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of our order of December 10, 2010, the motion DENIED . Because New Jersey has been the home state of the child, Damion James Moore, since January, 2010, and because Cumberland County has never been the home county of the child, we decline to exercise jurisdiction in this custody dispute. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. -3- 10-7412 CIVIL TERM Jessica Moore, Pro se 2525 Rolo Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Zachary R. Wall, Esquire 6 Split Road Drive Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Honorable John T. Kelley :saa -4- JESSICA MOORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAMES MOORE : DEFENDANT : 10-7412 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2011, upon consideration of IS plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of our order of December 10, 2010, the motion DENIED . Because New Jersey has been the home state of the child, Damion James Moore, since January, 2010, and because Cumberland County has never been the home county of the child, we decline to exercise jurisdiction in this custody dispute. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Jessica Moore, Pro se 2525 Rolo Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Zachary R. Wall, Esquire 6 Split Road Drive Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Honorable John T. Kelley :saa