No. 2-- 06--0988 Fil ed: 5-16-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re JO SEP H V .D. , a Mi

nor ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. ) ) No. 05-- F--389 ) ) Ho no r ab le (Ca risa E ., Pet itio ner -Ap pellee, v. ) Willia m P . Br ad y, Jac ob V.D ., Res

ponde nt-A ppel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Resp ond ent Ja co b V
. D. ap pe als t he cir cu it co ur t 's o rd er re quir inghim t o pa y t emp o r ar y child
su pp ort, as w ell as all ot her or der s re late d t o c hild cust od y, ent er ed p ur sua nt t o p et itio ner Car isa E. 's pe ti ti on for temporary cu stod

y of the parties'

mi nor chi ld, Joseph V.D. He also appeal

s the trial
co ur t 's o r de rho ldin g h im in in direct ci vi l c ontempt for fai

lure to pay

chi ld s upport as ordered. On ap pe al, r es po nd en t ar gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t lac ke d ju r isd ict io n ov er the p eti tion f or tem porary custody and thus that the trial court 's j udgme

nt shoul d be vacated. He li kewi se argues that the trial courtlacke d jur isdict ion o ver child sup po rt issues and th uswe sh oul d vac ate its jud gment s dire ct ing him to pay chi l d sup port and f i ndi ng h i m i n c ontem pt for f ail i ng to pa y chi l d sup port. Fo r t he r eas ons that foll ow, we vacate and rem

and. On Ju ly 1, 2 005 , peti

ti one r f i l ed i n K an e C oun ty , Il l i noi s, a pe ti ti on fo rt emp o r ar y cu st o dy. Af ter the trial

court deni

ed re spo ndent 's m

oti on to q ua sh servi ceof proc es s, r es pon de nt f i l ed a m oti on to dis mi ss the petition for l ack of sub je ct m atter j uri sdi

cti on on th

e b asis tha

t, unde r the U ni f ormNo. 2-- 06--0988

-2-

Chi ld-Cus to dy Juris diction and En

forcem ent Act (Act) (750 ILCS 36/101 et s eq. (We st 2004 )), j urisd i cti on ove r t he ma

tt er bel onged i n Nev ada and n ot in Ill in ois, bec ause custody proceedi ngs in t he mat t er ha d b ee n p en din g in Nevada s in ce 1999. On Novem

ber 22, 2005, the trial

court entered
an ord er den y i n g th e m oti on to dism i ss . Th e order s tate d a s f

oll ows , i n perti n en t pa rt: "T his matt er co ming befor e t he Co ur t on he ar ing o n pend ingmotions , both parties app ear ing through coun sel

and the Court bei

ng f ull y advi sed, THE COU

RT HEREBY F INDS: (1) Tha t t he St at e o f Illinois, Co unt y of Kane i s the more conven

ie nt forum to make a child-c ust od y det er mina t io n fo r the r ea son

s state d i

n open cou rt, wheref ore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Tha t thi s court sha

l l ass um e cus tody juri sdi

cti on of the m i nor ch i l d ***." No repor ts of proceedin

gs or substitutes appear i

n the record. On January 24, 2006, t he trial

court entered an

order requiri

ng responden

t t o pay peti

tioner $100 per week as tem

porary chi

ld s upport . On March

7, 2006, petitioner filed a rul e to show cause agains t re spo ndent for his failure t o p ay the $10 0 pe r w eek pur sua nt t o t he court's Jan uary 24 order, and, af ter a heari ng, the trial

court found responde

nt in in direct ci vi l c ontemptfor hi s f

ai lure to pay ch i l d suppor t. Though it is no t app ar ent who fil

ed it , a do cument app ear ingin the r eco rd pur po rt s t o be an ord er f rom a N ev ada state cou rt. Th e order s tate s, i

n perti n en t pa rt: "On Decem ber 1, 2005, the Stat e of Nevada entered a chi ld s up port order in the ab oveentitled mat t er wh ich is e nt it le d t o Fu ll F aith a nd Cr edit . O n Janu ar y 24, 200 6, t he [ Kane Cou n ty circu it co ur t her e] disre gar ded Neva da's or der and entered a chi ld s upport order ***No. 2-- 06--0988

-3-

pu rp orti n g to or der [res pon den t] to pay [petitioner] the sum of $100.00 per week. Illi nois' order i s v oi d i n th at: 1 ) Ne va da 's 12- 1-0 5 or der is ent itled to full fai th and credi

t; and 2) I llino is la cks personal

jurisd ictio n ove r [ re spo ndent ] * **. The St at e o f Nevad a has co nt inuing
ex cl usi ve j uri sdi cti on ove r al l chi l d sup port is sue s." The record co ntain

s no i ndi cat i on of an y conf eren ce b etween the tri al

court an d the Nev ada c ourt regardi ng th i s c as e. A f

ter a tr i al , the tr i al cou rt gra n ted j oi n t cu sto dy of Jos ep h to th e p ar

ti es . Respondent t im

ely appeals. Resp ond ent 's prim

ary argum

ent on appe a l is t ha t all o f t he t r ial c o ur t 's o r de r s a r e v o id because , pursuant to t he A ct, subje ct matter juri sdi ction of this cause l ie s i n Nev ada, an d n o t in Ill in ois. The Act, whi

ch b ecam e eff ective January

1, 2004, was promulga ted to end custody jurisdi ctional

di spute s b etw een s

tate s, to prom

ote c oope rati

on between states i

n determi ni ng custody issues, and to enhan

ce the abil

ity of stat es to enf

orce cu st od y or der s exp edit iou sly. C. Gamr at h, UCC JEA: A New A

pproach to Cust ody Juri sdi ction an d Interstat e Custody

an d V i si tation , 92 Ill . B. J. 2 04 ( 200 4). A s r el

evan t to respondent 's argumen t, the Act pro vides: "[A] cour t o f thi s Stat e may not exercise its j urisdiction under this A rti cle if, at t he t ime of the comm

encem ent of the proceedin

g, a p roceedi ng co ncer ning t he cu st od y of t he ch ild has been commen ced in a court o f an

ot her stat e havi

ng j urisdiction subst an t ially in conf ormi ty w i th thi s Act ***." 750 IL CS 36/206(a ) (We st 2004 ). Responden

t urges that, under

this section of

the Act, because h

e had com

me nced a custo dy pr oc eed ing in Nevad a pr ior t o t he date pet itioner f il ed her petition in Il

li nois, the trial

court la cked j urisd i cti on over this cause. However, as petitioner points out, t he trial court 's Ja

nuary 24 order
re f er s to the court 's stateme

nts i n open court as explana t ion fo r t he r uling, a nd t he r eco rd co nt ainsNo. 2-- 06--0988

-4-

no r ep o r t o f pr o ce ed ing s fo rsu ch a h ea r in g. Normal l y , b ec au se

"a n appe l l an t h as th e b ur den to pr ese nt a s uffic ien t ly

co mple t e r ec o r d o f t he pr o ce ed ing s [ be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t ] t o su pp o r t a c laim of er ro r, " and "[a

]n y doub ts w hi ch may ari se f rom the in compl eteness of the

record wil

l b e resolv

ed agains t the appellan

t" ( Fo ut ch v. O'Br yant , 99 Ill . 2d389 , 3 91- 92 ( 198 4) ), we w ou ld pr esu me in the absen ce o f a f ull record of procee di ngs be l ow that the

tria l courthad a val

id l egal reason to exercise j uri sdi cti on un der th e A ct and tha

t itsj udgm

en t shoul d be af f i rmed. Howev er, here, ev

en the i nc omp l ete rec ordof

pr o ce ed ing s be lo w d emo nst r at es r ev er sible
error. Se cti

on 2 06( b) of the A ct p rovi de s th

at, " [i ]f the cou rt determ i ne s th at a ch i l d-c us tody pr oc eed ingh as

b een com men ce d i n a c our t i n an oth er sta te ha ving jur isd ict io n su bst an t ially in accordance wi

th th i s A ct, th e c our

t of th i s S tate sh al l sta y i ts pr oce ed

i n g a n d c om m un i ca te wi th t he courtof the other state. " 750 ILCS 36/206(b) (Wes t 2004). Because the parties do not dis pute, and t he record

establ is hes, that there was a custody action pen

din g in Nevada at the tim

e petitione

r fi le d t he petition f

or t em porary custody at is sue here, th e tr i al cou rt w as re qui re d to co mmunicate wit h t he Nevada cour t t o det ermi

ne each court 's j urisdiction. Indeed, at o ral argumen t t o t hi s co ur t , bo th parti es stip

ul ated th at the tri

al j udge made s uch a com m uni cation. Sec ti on 110 of the A ct, whi ch governs the c omm

uni cation req ui red un der se ction 206 (b), sta tes as f ol l ows , i n perti n en t pa rt: "(d) Except [for co mm

uni cation on schedules, calend ar s, c ou rt re co rd s, a nd si mi la r matters], a r ec o r d mu st be mad e o f a c o mmun ica t io n u nd er t his Sec t ion. The part ies m ust be i nf ormed promptl

y of the comm

unication an

d granted access to the record.No. 2-- 06--0988

-5- (e) For the purposes of this section, 'record' mea

ns i nf orm ati on t hat is inscribed on a t angibl e m ed ium

or th at is s t o r ed in a n e lec t r o nic o ro t he rmed ium a nd is r et r iev ab le in perce i va bl e f orm." 750 IL CS 36/110(d ), (e) (W est 200 4). He re, wese e n

o rec ord of

t he co mmunicatio n bet wee n t he trial court and the Nev

ada court, ei

ther in the f orm of a tra ns cri pt of an ope n- cou rt de scri ption of t he co mmun ica t io n o rin t he fo r m o f so me se pa ra te documen

t o r ot her m

edi um retri evab le

in percei vab le f orm . Acc ordi

n gl y , e v en wi th out a com pl ete rec ord of pr o ce ed ing s be lo w, we may a sc er t ain th at th e tr i al cou rt f ai l ed to co m pl y wi th i ts statutory duty to prov i dea re cord

of an y com mun ic ation unde r the A

ct, an d w e m us t v ac ate

i ts judg ment on

t he pe t itio n for cus t od y and r emand t he ca us e f or p roc ee di

n gscon siste n t wi th th e A ct. Resp ond ent al so argues that t he trial co urt l acke d j uri sdi

cti on to en

ter the s upport order. Though respondent argues that t he trial court la cked both personal

jurisdi ction over

hi m a nd sub je ct matt er jurisd ictio n ove r t he ac t ion, pet itio ner re spo nded in her ap pellat e br ief only to t he ar gument re gar ding per so nal jurisdict ion. We granted respondent's peti tion f or rehearin

g, which urged

that we consider h is a rgumen ts relati ng to t he support or der, but petitioner decl in ed to fil e a response. Ac co r di ng ly, pet itio ner has w aived o ppo sitio n t o r esp ond ent 's su bj ec t matte r j urisd

i cti on argu men t, and we al so vacate that por tion of the tria l co ur t 's o rd er and reman

d for further proceedi

ngs. See 210 I ll. 2d R. 34 1( h )(7 ) (" Poi

n ts no t ar gu ed ar e w aiv ed ") ; 2 10 I ll. 2d R. 341(i) (Rul e 341(h)(7) appli

es to appell ees' bri ef s). No t hing in t his o pin io n sh o uld be r ea d a s ind ica t ing t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t is preclude d f rom find ing o n r ema nd , aft er co mplia nc e w it h t he Ac t , t ha t it has obtai ned sub je ct matter jurisdi ction over thi s cause. On re mand, we e nco ur age t he part ies t o ma ke a c omp l ete rec ord of th e tri al court pr oc eed ings, by

rep ort of proceedin

gs or by substi tut e, so that, in

the even t o f a s ubsequen t appealNo. 2-- 06--0988

-6-

on thi s j urisd i cti ona l i ss ueorany ot her iss ues, this court ma y b e ful ly in form ed of the basi s of the trial court 's rul in gs, as i s requi

red for me ani

ngf ul a ppel la te review
. For the foregoin

g reasons, we va

ca te the j udg

men t of the tri al cou rt an d re man d the c au se

f or f urthe r procee di

ngs . Vacated and rem

anded. GROM ETER, P.J ., and HUTC HINSO N, J., c oncu

r.