Opinion ID: 1292527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the superior court have jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of the washington decree?

Text: The provisions of UCCJA, as adopted in Alaska and Washington, determine which court has subject matter jurisdiction over custody matters. [2] Briefly stated, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to modify the subject custody decree if, as of the date Alaska jurisdiction was invoked, [3] the Washington court retained jurisdiction to modify its original 1976 custody decree. AS 25.30.130(a); [4] Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P.2d 14, 16, 17 (Alaska 1982) (jurisdictional prerequisites of the UCCJA apply to motions before a superior court to modify custody decrees). As Washington is no longer Jennifer's home state, the essential inquiry is whether a Washington court would assume jurisdiction over the modification request pursuant to RCW 26.27.030(1)(b): RCW 26.27.030. Jurisdiction. (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if the conditions as set forth in any of the following paragraphs are met: (a) This state (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or (b) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and (ii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; ... . (3) Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. We conclude that on the facts before us the courts of Washington would have held that they lacked jurisdiction at the time Judith made her 1987 custody motion. Alaska, not Washington, then had the most significant connection to Jennifer. In re Custody of Thorensen, 46 Wash. App. 493, 730 P.2d 1380, 1388 (1987). In Thorensen a child and two parents lived in Florida at least between 1976 (when the child was born) and 1980. Id. at 1382. A custody order was issued by a Florida court in favor of the mother in 1979. Id. The father then moved for modification in 1980, again in Florida. Id. The Florida court instead issued an order granting custody to the Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services. This order was never enforced, as the mother had earlier fled the state with the child. Id. In 1986 the mother petitioned a Washington superior court to modify the 1980 order, and preclude enforcement of a related 1986 Florida order granting Thorensen temporary custody. Id. The Washington court asserted jurisdiction over the mother's motion to modify on grounds that the state of Washington had developed the most significant connections with the child. Id. at 1386, 1388. At the time of the modification motion the child had resided in Washington for the previous two years, and had not lived in Florida for five years. The Thorensen court noted that jurisdiction would vest in the court with the maximum contacts to the child, and concluded, Florida court records from 5 years ago, when [the child] was only 4 years old, have little bearing on the present and future of the 10-year-old child with education records, medical records, and living arrangements in the state of Washington for the last 2 years. Id. at 1388. The Thorensen court concluded that Washington, the home state, was the most appropriate forum. [5]