State Central Authority and Best (Quasi Enforcement of Safe Harbour Orders)

This matter concerned preliminary objections raised by the father regarding the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania court in a custody dispute with the mother. The father asserted that the mother resided in Nevada and that Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction over the custody matter, contending that Nevada should exercise jurisdiction. The father also objected to the registration of an Australian court order in Pennsylvania and sought to be heard on a proposed modification of the custody order. The mother objected to the father's attorney, alleging she had previously sought advice from her.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to restrain an attorney practising in the United States from acting for the father, and whether to grant the father's request for an order compelling the mother to return to Nevada with the children and granting him temporary physical custody. The father also sought an order for the parties to attend family mediation to formulate a parenting agreement once the children were returned.

The court found it inappropriate to restrain an attorney practising in the United States, as it was not within its purview to regulate the conduct of officers of the court in another jurisdiction. The father's assertions regarding the Australian court's proceedings, including claims of bias and lack of proper representation, were noted. The father's divorce complaint filed in Nevada sought sole legal and physical custody of the children in Nevada, child support, and an equal division of community property and debts. The father's affidavit in support of the divorce complaint detailed his understanding of the Australian court's orders regarding the mother's return to the United States and his belief that the mother was attempting to avoid returning by seeking relocation from a Pennsylvania court.