Case Name: Karen CHADDICK f/n/a Karen Monopoli, Petitioner, v. Joseph MONOPOLI, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-06-28
Citations: 677 So. 2d 347
Docket Number: No. 95-1328
Parties: Karen CHADDICK f/n/a Karen Monopoli, Petitioner, v. Joseph MONOPOLI, Respondent.
Judges: PETERSON, C.J., and COBB, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 677
Pages: 347–355

Head Matter:
Karen CHADDICK f/n/a Karen Monopoli, Petitioner, v. Joseph MONOPOLI, Respondent.
No. 95-1328.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 28, 1996.
Donald P. Sluder, Ocoee, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondent.

Opinion:
GOSHORN, Judge.
Karen Chaddick seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order dismissing her petition to enforce a Massachusetts divorce decree's child custody provision. Following a telephonic hearing with a Virginia judge pursuant to subsection 61.1316(4), Florida Statutes (1993), the trial court concluded that the Virginia court had assumed jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). It therefore dismissed Chad-dick's petition, deferring to the Virginia court's jurisdiction. On appeal, Chaddick argues that there should be an evidentiary hearing and that the case should proceed on its merits in Florida. The record affirmatively shows the Florida trial court acted in conformity with the dictates and objectives of the UCCJA in finding that the Virginia court properly assumed jurisdiction and considered the issues Chaddick wishes to raise in Florida. We therefore affirm the dismissal of Chaddick's Florida petition. See § 61.1314(1), Fla. Stat. (1993) (providing that a court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under the UCCJA if, at the time the petition is filed, a proceeding concerning child custody is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJA).
Chaddick appeared and participated in the custody proceedings in Virginia. Dissatisfied with the Virginia proceedings, Chaddick filed her petition to enforce the child custody provisions of the Massachusetts divorce decree in the circuit court of Orange County, Florida. Judge Baker, after a telephonic conversation with the Virginia judge, concluded that the Virginia court had jurisdiction over the child custody issue. See § 61.1316(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). Judge Baker found that only a month earlier the Virginia court had heard all the same matters Chaddick was asserting in her Florida petition and had ruled against Chaddick on them. Implicit in the dismissal of Chaddick's Florida petition is Judge Baker's finding that the Virginia court had exercised its jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJA. The Virginia court, under the "Best Interest Doctrine," could have properly assumed jurisdiction upon finding that the children and one of the parents had a significant connection with that state. See § 61.1308(l)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (1993); Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So.2d 1267 (Fla.1991) (New York court, in which custody proceeding was brought prior to commencement of proceedings in Florida court, was appropriate forum for determining child custody, even though it was claimed that New York was not exercising jurisdiction in conformity with the UCCJA; child was in New York with one parent at the time proceeding commenced there, thus providing jurisdictional basis).
In this case, Chaddick, upset by adverse rulings in Virginia, filed a petition in Orange County in hopes of finding a more favorable forum. This runs counter to the stated purposes of the UCCJA, namely to avoid jurisdictional competition in conflict with courts of other states, to discourage continuing controversies over child custody, and to avoid relit-igation over custody decisions of other states insofar as possible. See § 61.1304(1), (4), and (6), Fla. Stat. (1993). The child custody issue has been litigated in Virginia, where both parties appeared and a complete record developed. If the Virginia court erred in assuming jurisdiction, that issue should be raised in the appropriate appellate court in Virginia. Accordingly, the trial court's order dismissing Chaddick's petition is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and COBB, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
W. SHARP, J., dissents, with opinion, in which DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
. We note that Chaddick should have sought review by way of plenary appeal from the final order of dismissal, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), and opt to treat her request for certiorari as a timely filed notice of appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c).
. See § 61.1302-61.1348, Fla. Stat. (1993).