Opinion ID: 1124085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mississippi/colorado procedural history

Text: Steve was notified in Mississippi of the URESA action on June 3, 1992. He filed a general denial to its allegations and asserted the affirmative defense of his alleged compliance with the Colorado court order, of Elizabeth's alleged failure to comply with the divorce decree, and of her alleged failure to care for the children. He asked by counterclaim for a modification of child custody. The assertion of Mississippi's jurisdiction to entertain a custody modification was based on Elizabeth's having filed the URESA action for support and on the children's having significant connection with this state. The counterclaim asserted that the children are or will soon be physically present in the State of Mississippi.... The pleadings make assertions of an emergency situation dating back to 1987, a time prior to the divorce. As to the child support question, Steven claimed compliance with the Colorado order and requested (1) credit and equitable reduction or abatement for summer visitation periods when he supported the children, (2) full credit for all support payments and expenses incurred while said children were in his actual physical custody, and (3) credit for payments made by him on Mississippi bank loans that the Colorado court ordered Elizabeth to pay, totaling $1,915.74. Total credits claimed by Steven totaled to within $816 of the claimed arrearage of $5,550, and the amount of $816 was deposited by Steven into the registry of the Mississippi Chancery Court. Elizabeth Marquis was represented in the Mississippi chancery court proceeding, pursuant to the URESA statute, by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS filed an answer to Steven's counterclaim for custody modification asserting an appearance on behalf of Elizabeth on the child support issue only. DHS asserted the lack of process on Elizabeth for a custody modification hearing and lack of DHS' authority to represent Elizabeth on any issue other than support. The chancery court entered an order on July 2, 1992, setting a hearing on Elizabeth's support complaint and Steven's counterclaim for custody modification under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act (UCCJA) for July 16, 1992. An order was also entered by the chancellor directing Elizabeth to appear personally with the children on July 16, 1992, for the hearing under M.C.A. § 93-23-9 (UCCJA) and to submit to a telephone deposition on July 14, 1992. The proceedings of this litigation moved again to Colorado when Elizabeth filed a second action in the District Court for El Paso County, requesting the Colorado Court to issue a restraining order preventing her telephone deposition, the litigation of the custody issue in the Mississippi chancery court, and the removal of the children from Colorado. Steven then filed, in Mississippi, a petition pursuant to the UCCJA requesting the Mississippi chancellor to contact the Colorado judge in order that Colorado might give full faith and credit to the Mississippi order asserting jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. DHS filed an updated motion seeking a contempt order for non-payment of support, as of June 30, 1992, in the amount of $5,153.00. Three final orders were entered on July 16, 1992. The first order requested the Colorado court to abstain from further action and hold in abeyance any motions filed by Elizabeth in the Colorado court as Mississippi had asserted jurisdiction over the custody issue. There is no recital as to the physical presence of Elizabeth or the children in Mississippi in this order. [1] The second final judgment granted the counterclaim of Steven, modifying the Colorado decree as to custody of the two minor children and granting custody to their father. The court found an emergency situation existed as to the children's being subject[ed] to mistreatment, abuse and neglect on the part of the [Elizabeth]. The third order dismissed Elizabeth's complaint for support arrearage, contempt citation, and amended motion for contempt. The order provided Steven with an equitable adjustment and offset on all sums for which he sought credit, including the $816 paid into the court's registry. The $816 was directed to be repaid to Steven. A request by DHS for supersedeas of the Mississippi order was denied by the chancery court on August 6, 1992. [2]