Source: http://blahniklawoffice.com/content/uccjea
Timestamp: 2018-01-24 11:15:07
Document Index: 641679675

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 518']

UCCJEA | Blahnik Law Office
"UCCJEA" stands for "Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act." Chapter 518D of the Minnesota Statutes is Minnesota's version of the UCCJEA. Since child custody and divorce proceedings are dealt with by individual States, a mechanism was needed to address interstate child custody issues; the UCCJEA does just that. It provides a procedure to follow in determining which State has the authority to issue a custody order, when multiple states are involved.
For instance, what would happen if a married couple has two children and resided in the State of Minnesota for five years, then the parties separated informally and the mother and the children moved to the State of Wisconsin where they resided for five months? Would Minnesota or Wisconsin have authority and jurisdiction to issue a custody order (through a divorce proceeding or otherwise)? As I provide in detail below, in this case, Minnesota would have jurisdiction, because Minnesota remains the "home state" since the children resided in Minnesota for a continuous six months, and since they have not yet resided in Wisconsin for the same six month period.
The UCCJEA defines a minor child’s “home state” as follows:
'Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than six months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.
As defined above, to be the children’s “home state” the minor children would have had to reside in Minnesota for six consecutive months prior to the commencement of the custody proceeding. Alternatively, Minnesota would be considered the “home state” of the children if it was the home state of the children within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the children are absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.
Minn. Stat. § 518D.201 provides at length as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in section 518D.204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:
(2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under clause (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 518D.207 or 518D.208, and:
(i) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and
(ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships
(3) all courts having jurisdiction under clause (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under section 518D.207 or 518D.208; or
(4) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in clause (1), (2), or (3)
(b) Paragraph (a) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.
As provided above, Minn. Stat. § 518D.201 (a)(2) allows jurisdiction to exist in Minnesota if there is no home state and:
As cited above, Minn. Stat. § 518D.201 (a)(3) would allow the State of Minnesota to exercise jurisdiction over custody if “all courts having jurisdiction under clause (1) or (2) [of Minn. Stat. § 518D.201 (a)] have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under section 518D.207 or 518D.208.”
Minn. Stat. § 518D.207 provides at length as follows:
The “Official Comments (2006 Main Volume)” to Minn. Stat. § 518D.207 provide in part as follows:
This section retains the focus of Section 7 of the UCCJA. It authorizes courts to decide that another State is in a better position to make the custody determination, taking into consideration the relative circumstances of the parties. If so, the court may defer to the other State.
The list of factors that the court may consider has been updated from the UCCJA. The list is not meant to be exclusive. Several provisions require comment. Subparagraph (1) is concerned specifically with domestic violence and other matters affecting the health and safety of the parties. For this purpose, the court should determine whether the parties are located in different States because one party is a victim of domestic violence or child abuse. If domestic violence or child abuse has occurred, this factor authorizes the court to consider which State can best protect the victim from further violence or abuse. * * *
In applying subsection (7) on expeditious resolution of the controversy, the court could consider the different procedural and evidentiary laws of the two States, as well as the flexibility of the court dockets. It also should consider the ability of a court to arrive at a solution to all the legal issues surrounding the family. If one State has jurisdiction to decide both the custody and support issues, it would be desirable to determine that State to be the most convenient forum. The same is true when children of the same family live in different States. * * *
Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction, the court of this State may communicate, in accordance with Section 110, with a court of another State and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court.