Case Title: Jackson v. Hendricks

Citation: 179 Vt. 549, 2005 VT 113, 893 A.2d 292

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jackson v. Hendricks (2004-239); 179 Vt. 549; 893 A.2d 292

2005 VT 113

[Filed 24-Oct-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 113

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-239

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  Lakeisha Jackson and Brenda Edwards	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Windham Family Court
                                        }	
  Thomas R. Hendricks, Jr.	        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 120-4-99 Wmdm

                                                Trial Judge: Katherine A. Hayes

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Lakeisha Jackson and Brenda Edwards appeal from a family
  court order that awarded  Thomas Hendricks legal and physical parental
  rights and responsibilities for Elijah Hendricks.  Appellants contend that:
  (1) the Vermont family court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because
  the Florida courts are a more appropriate forum; and (2) even if it has
  jurisdiction, the family court has no authority to terminate Brenda
  Edwards' guardianship of the child, which was instituted by order of the
  Connecticut probate court.  We reject these arguments and affirm the family
  court.

       ¶  2.  The family court made the following findings.  Lakeisha Jackson
  gave birth to Elijah in February 1997.  During the first year of the
  child's life, Jackson lived with her mother, Brenda Edwards, in
  Connecticut.  In February 1998, Jackson decided to enlist in the Navy, and
  the Connecticut probate court awarded Edwards legal guardianship of Elijah
  with Jackson's agreement.  At that time, the Connecticut court stated that
  it had made no determination regarding the rights of Thomas Hendricks-who
  claimed to be Elijah's father and opposed the guardianship-because
  Hendricks had not established paternity.  In July 1999, however, guardian
  and mother sought an order in the Vermont family court obligating
  Hendricks, a resident of Vermont, to pay child support to guardian.  As
  part of those proceedings, mother and guardian acknowledged Hendricks'
  paternity, and the court issued orders establishing Hendricks' parentage
  and requiring to him to pay child support.

       ¶  3.  In August 2002, guardian moved to Florida and left Elijah
  with mother, who was stationed in Virginia.  In November of that year, the
  Navy reassigned mother to Florida, and Elijah lived with her in Florida for
  the next month.  In December, mother learned that she was scheduled for sea
  duty, and guardian was unable to care for Elijah as she settled into a new
  home and job.  Given these circumstances, guardian and mother decided to
  ask father to take care of Elijah for the remainder of the school year. 
  Father picked up Elijah on December 31, 2002, and took him to his home in
  Vermont.
   
       ¶  4.  On January 9, 2003, father filed a motion in the Vermont
  family court seeking sole legal and physical parental rights and
  responsibilities for Elijah.  In his supporting affidavit,  father
  acknowledged that Elijah had been with him for only a few days, and he
  recounted the boy's recent movement from Virginia to Florida.  He went on
  to state that mother was shipping out with the Navy  and said that she
  agreed Elijah should live with him.  Father advised the court that he
  needed a custody order to enroll Elijah in school, but he made no mention
  of Edwards' role as Elijah's legal guardian.  He simultaneously moved the
  court to modify the existing child support order.  On January 22, the court
  awarded father temporary legal and physical parental rights and
  responsibilities, and scheduled a case manager's conference for March 11. 
  At the conference, the case manager issued an entry stating: "Plaintiff
  shall file objection within 30 days of service of this order if she
  requests hearing.  If no objection filed, order shall become final."  On
  May 27, the order became final.  At some point after mother learned of
  father's intentions, she contacted the Florida courts and was told she
  needed to pursue a remedy in Vermont.

       ¶  5.  On August 1, guardian filed a motion to modify or reconsider
  the order awarding father legal and physical parental rights and
  responsibilities.  She argued that the Vermont family court did not have
  jurisdiction to determine Elijah's custody because he had not lived in the
  state for six months prior to father's motion.  She also claimed that
  father was refusing to allow mother to have contact with Elijah, and
  expressed concerns about father's ability to care for the child. 
  Appellants did not ask the court to award mother parental rights and
  responsibilities, but instead sought to reestablish Edwards' guardianship
  of Elijah.  The court scheduled evidentiary hearings for December 3, 2003
  and February 4, 2004.

       ¶  6.  After the hearings, the court found that mother and guardian
  had not received written notice of father's motions until May 24, 2003 - just
  three days before the custody order became final.  The court noted that
  mother participated by telephone in the case manager's conference of March
  11, but found that mother was not aware that father was in the process of
  seeking sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities.  On
  May 20, guardian participated by telephone in a second case manager's
  conference, during which she learned of father's intentions for the first
  time.  Guardian and mother then received written notice on May 24.  Given
  the lack of notice, and father's failure to identify guardian upon filing
  his motion, the court decided to treat its order granting father custody as
  temporary, and treated guardian's later motions as objections to that
  status.

       ¶  7.  The court then concluded that it had jurisdiction to modify
  parental rights and responsibilities under the Uniform Child Custody
  Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a)(4),  and the Parental
  Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (1994 & Supp. 
  2005).  The court recognized that Vermont was not Elijah's "home state" at
  the time father filed his motion, but it found that, due to mother's recent
  relocations, Elijah did not have a home state as defined in the UCCJA.  See
  15 V.S.A. § 1031(5) (defining child's "home state" as the one in which the
  child, immediately preceding the relevant time period, lived with his
  parents, a parent, or a person acting as a parent, for at least six
  consecutive months).  Given these circumstances, the court found that it
  was in Elijah's best interest for it to assume jurisdiction pursuant to 15
  V.S.A § 1032(a)(4).  It further found that its assumption of jurisdiction
  was consistent with § 1738A(c) of the PKPA.  The court then made findings
  of fact and reviewed Elijah's circumstances relative to the factors that
  the Legislature has established for custody determinations, see 15 V.S.A. §
  665(b), and awarded father legal and physical parental rights and
  responsibilities.  This appeal followed. 
          
       ¶  8.  Appellants argue that the Vermont court lacked jurisdiction
  to terminate the Connecticut order that appointed Brenda Edwards as
  Elijah's legal guardian.  They maintain that only a Connecticut probate
  court has that authority.  According to appellants, even if this Court
  concludes that the Vermont court did have jurisdiction to terminate the
  guardianship order, then Florida, rather than Vermont, was the more
  appropriate forum for any custody determination because the child's mother
  and guardian resided there.  Appellants maintain that there is insufficient
  evidence to support the family court's finding that Florida had declined
  jurisdiction over the case.  As discussed below, we find these arguments
  without merit. 

       ¶  9.  As this case involves the Vermont family court's modification
  of an existing child custody decree-the Connecticut order that awarded
  legal guardianship of Elijah to Edwards - we turn first to the PKPA. (FN1) 
  See Matthews v. Riley, 162 Vt. 401, 404,