NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

JESSE B., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, C.B., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 16-0188

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD201500028

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

REMANDED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer, Tanya R. Imming

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek

Counsel for Appellees
JESSE B. v. DCS, C.B.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Jesse B. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his

parental rights to C.B. For the reasons set forth below, this matter is 

remanded so the superior court can determine whether Arizona, rather 

than Michigan, is the appropriate jurisdiction in which to address 

severance. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 C.B. was born in Michigan in February 2011 while Father 

and Josephine B. (Mother) were married and living there. From the record, 

it appears that Father, Mother and C.B. lived in Michigan continuously 

until at least June 2013. 

¶3 Mother and Father apparently divorced in Michigan in 

August 2012. As alleged in the dependency petition, in February 2013, 

Father was granted custody of C.B. by the Michigan court. More 

specifically, the Michigan court issued an order awarding Father and 

Mother joint legal and physical custody of C.B., adding C.B.’s “domicile . . 

. shall not be changed from the State of Michigan without prior approval 

from the Court.”

¶4 In June 2013, Mother expressed an intent to move to 

Arizona. The Michigan court then modified parenting time, with Mother

being responsible for providing transportation for C.B. to and from 

parenting time with Father, who remained in Michigan. At some point, 

Mother then moved with C.B. to Arizona. Father later obtained 

enforcement orders from the Michigan court based on Mother’s failure to 

comply with that court’s parenting time orders. The record suggests 

Mother failed to comply with those enforcement orders. And the record 

does not indicate that the Michigan court proceeding has been dismissed 

or the custody orders vacated.
JESSE B. v. DCS, C.B.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 In April 2015, DCS filed a dependency petition noting the 

Michigan court’s February 2013 order granting Father custody of C.B.

C.B., who has been placed with her maternal grandmother during nearly 

all of these proceedings, was found dependent as to both parents; DCS 

later filed a motion to terminate; Father’s parental rights were terminated 

after a trial where the Michigan court’s custody orders were referenced 

and this timely appeal by Father followed.1

DISCUSSION

¶6 The parties did not raise with the superior court the 

potential jurisdictional impact of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction 

and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified in Arizona at Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 25-1001 to –1067 (2016).2 Because this court has 

an independent obligation to evaluate subject matter jurisdiction, 

supplemental briefing addressing the application of the UCCJEA was 

ordered. See generally Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 234 Ariz. 69 (App. 2014). 

¶7 Under the UCCJEA, as adopted in Arizona and Michigan, 

original jurisdiction for the initial child custody determination is the 

child’s home state. A.R.S. § 25-1031 (A)(1); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 

722.1201 (1)(a) (West). An initial determination is “the first child custody 

determination concerning a particular child.” A.R.S. § 25-1002(8); Mich. 

Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.1102 (h) (West). “Home state” is the state in 

which the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months 

before the filing of a custody petition, or since birth. A.R.S. § 25-1002(7); 

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.1102 (g) (West). 

¶8 From the record presented, Father and Mother both lived in 

Michigan for at least six consecutive months before the Michigan court’s 

custody order issued in February 2013, and C.B. had lived in Michigan 

with both parents since her birth in February 2011. Accordingly, from the 

record, it appears Michigan was C.B.’s home state as of February 2013, 

meaning the Michigan court had original jurisdiction over the initial 

 

1 Although not dispositive of this appeal, the record includes a DCS 

Interstate Compact Placement Request, that appears to have been 

approved in August 2015, seeking placement of C.B. with Father in 

Michigan. 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes cited to refer 

to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 
JESSE B. v. DCS, C.B.

Decision of the Court

4

custody determination. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.1102, 1201 

(West). 

¶9 Under the UCCJEA, a court with original jurisdiction that 

issues an initial child custody order will maintain continuing jurisdiction 

over all future custody determinations, subject to statutory exceptions. 

A.R.S. § 25- 1031(A)(1); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.1202 (West). Unless 

a statutory exception applies, a court in another state is prohibited from 

modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, 

continuing jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 25-1033; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 

722.1203 (West).

¶10 Under A.R.S. § 8-532, “the Arizona superior court has 

‘exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions to terminate the parent-child 

relationship’” when the child is present in Arizona. Angel B., 234 Ariz. at

73 ¶ 12. However, under the UCCJEA, “the Arizona superior court shall 

recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another 

state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with 

this chapter. A.R.S. § 25-1053(A).” Id. (internal quotations and citations 

omitted).

¶11 It appears that the Arizona superior court had jurisdiction to 

make an initial determination under A.R.S. § 25-1031(A)(1), because C.B. 

lived in Arizona for at least six months before DCS filed the dependency 

petition. Therefore, Arizona was C.B.’s home state at that time. See A.R.S. 

§ 25-1002(7)(a). In order “[t]o establish jurisdiction in Arizona to issue a 

termination order, however, the requirements of either A.R.S. § 25-1033(1) 

or § 25-1033(2) also must be met.” Angel B., 234 Ariz. at 74 ¶ 16. 

¶12 Father continues to live in Michigan, meaning A.R.S. § 25-

1033(2) does not apply. Turning to A.R.S. § 25-1033(1), Arizona would 

have jurisdiction to grant severance in this case only if the Michigan court 

determined that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, A.R.S. 

§ 25-1032, or that Michigan was an inconvenient forum and Arizona 

would be a more convenient forum, A.R.S. § 25-1037. See Angel B., 234 

Ariz. at 74 ¶ 17 (citing authority). The record on appeal does not reflect 

such a determination by the Michigan court, and “any such determination 

must be a part of the record.” Id.

¶13 The supplemental briefs by DCS and Father concede that the 

UCCJEA may apply but differ in their view of the appropriate remedy, 

with DCS requesting a stay of the appeal or remand and Father requesting 

the termination order be vacated. As in Angel B., “remand is necessary so 
JESSE B. v. DCS, C.B.

Decision of the Court

5

the superior court may address this jurisdictional issue.” 234 Ariz. at 74 ¶

17. The possible options outlined in Angel B. should guide the superior 

court and the parties on remand. Id. at 74-75 ¶¶ 18-21.

CONCLUSION

¶14 This matter is remanded to the superior court for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision to determine whether Arizona,

rather than Michigan, is the appropriate jurisdiction in which to address 

severance.