Opinion ID: 1754583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Relinquishing Jurisdiction Under UCCJEA for Reason of Inconvenient Forum

Text: Although the district court did not lose its exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under § 43-1239, the court had discretionary authority under the UCCJEA to decline to exercise its jurisdiction. We now address whether the district court properly exercised its discretion to relinquish exclusive and continuing jurisdiction. [7] A court with exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. See § 43-1244(a). Although the district court concluded that the Maryland court was the more appropriate and convenient forum, the district court failed to consider the relevant factors for relinquishing jurisdiction under § 43-1244. Under the UCCJEA, a court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction only after the court considers certain factors. Section 43-1244 sets forth the proper procedure for relinquishing jurisdiction on the basis that the court is an inconvenient forum. The statute mandates: Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including : (1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; (5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. (Emphasis supplied.) § 43-1244(b). [8-10] Appellate courts give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Curran v. Buser, 271 Neb. 332, 711 N.W.2d 562 (2006). As a general rule, the word shall is considered mandatory and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. Spaghetti Ltd. Partnership v. Wolfe, 264 Neb. 365, 647 N.W.2d 615 (2002). Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, the UCCJEA requires a court to allow the parties to submit information and to consider all relevant factors. See § 43-1244(b). In the instant case, no evidentiary hearing was conducted and the district court made no analysis under § 43-1244(b) before it relinquished exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to the Maryland court. In concluding that Maryland was a more appropriate forum, the district court relied upon the fact that Jill had registered the dissolution decree and related judgments in Maryland and that Robert had not objected. The district court also relied on the Maryland court's alleged determination that it was a more appropriate and convenient forum. While recognizing that the factors in § 43-1244(b) are not exhaustive, we note that the considerations made by the district court did not include the conditions expressed in § 43-1244(b). The record before us contains copies of the orders issued by the Maryland court; however, the record does not indicate that the Maryland court specifically determined that . . . it [was] the more appropriate and convenient forum for determining child custody issues. Our de novo review reveals that Jill registered the dissolution decree and related judgments in the Maryland court, without objection by Robert. Later, Jill filed a petition in the Maryland court to modify the visitation schedule. Robert filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Nebraska had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction. In denying Robert's motion, the Maryland court reasoned that Robert had waived his right to contest the authority of that court to enforce or modify the dissolution decree because he had not contested its registration. Thus, the record indicates that the Maryland court based its exercise of jurisdiction not on the fact that Maryland was a more convenient and appropriate forum, but on the fact that Robert did not object to the registration of the dissolution decree and related judgments in Maryland. Whether the Maryland court erred in denying Robert's motion to dismiss and in exercising jurisdiction to modify the visitation schedule is not an issue before us and is apparently on appeal in Maryland. We refer to the Maryland court's decision because that is the basis upon which the district court relinquished its jurisdiction. Consideration of another state's exercise of jurisdiction is not a factor set forth in § 43-1244(b), and in this case, it was not a relevant factor under that section. The State of Maryland has also adopted the UCCJEA. See Md. Code Ann., Family Law §§ 9.5-101 to 9.5-318 (LexisNexis 2006). Jill registered the dissolution decree and related judgments in the Maryland court, and Robert did not object to such enrollment. See, generally, Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 9.5-305 (setting forth procedure for registering child custody determination issued by court of another state). Accord § 43-1252. The uncontested registration of a Nebraska child custody determination in Maryland authorizes the Maryland court to enforce the Nebraska order. See Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 9.5-306. Accord § 43-1253(b) ([a] court of this state shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, except in accordance with sections 43-1238 to 43-1247, a registered child custody determination of a court of another state). Whether Jill's registration of the dissolution decree and related judgments conferred on the Maryland court authority to modify those orders is apparently pending on appeal in Maryland. Since Robert continued to reside in Nebraska, the Maryland court could obtain jurisdiction to modify Nebraska's child custody determination only if a Nebraska court first determined either that it had lost its exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under § 43-1239 or that a Maryland court was a more convenient forum under § 43-1244. See Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 9.5-203. Accord § 43-1240. See, also, Vannatta v. Boulds, 318 Mont. 472, 81 P.3d 480 (2003) (holding that Montana court lacked jurisdiction to modify child custody determination of another state because other state had not determined that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Montana would be more convenient forum). The Maryland court's exercise of jurisdiction in the modification proceeding was not a factor to be considered by the district court under § 43-1244. [11] As a general rule, a decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA for the reason of an inconvenient forum is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. See Shanoski v. Miller, 780 A.2d 275 (Me. 2001). Cf. In re Interest of Floyd B., 254 Neb. 443, 577 N.W.2d 535 (1998) (stating that whether jurisdiction existing under NCCJA should be exercised was entrusted to discretion of trial court and reviewed de novo on record). Although the district court had discretionary authority under § 43-1244 to find that it was an inconvenient forum and thus to decline to exercise its jurisdiction, the court failed to correctly apply the provisions of § 43-1244(b) in making its determination. [12] In appellate proceedings, the examination by the appellate court is confined to questions which have been determined by the trial court. In re Estate of Rosso, 270 Neb. 323, 701 N.W.2d 355 (2005). Section 43-1244(b) instructs trial courts to allow the parties to submit information and to consider all relevant factors, including [certain specified considerations]. Prior to making a determination that another state is a more convenient forum, courts must consider relevant factors under § 43-1244(b). Because an evidentiary hearing was not held, this court is unable to review whether the district court declined to exercise its jurisdiction for appropriate reasons. The record does not contain any evidence or analysis by the district court as required under § 43-1244. In Shanoski v. Miller, supra , the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine considered whether the trial court had abused its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction under Maine's UCCJEA for the reason of an inconvenient forum. In declining to exercise jurisdiction, the trial court stated that it had considered the inconvenient forum factors of the UCCJEA, but the court's ruling did not reflect a factor-by-factor analysis. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine analyzed each of the statutory factors and concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction. Although the trial court in Shanoski v. Miller, supra , did not make findings for each factor of the inconvenient forum statute, the appellate court stated that the trial court's thoughtful discussion contained several findings regarding convenience, three of which findings related to the specified statutory factors. Id. at 280. An evidentiary hearing was not held on the mother's motion to decline jurisdiction because the parties agreed to let the trial court consider the motion by affidavit and exhibits. The appellate court stated that the statute did not expressly require trial courts to specifically enumerate their findings for each factor, but the court did require findings sufficient to inform the parties of the court's reasoning and sufficient for effective appellate review. Id. [13] Section 43-1244 prescribes the method by which a trial court may relinquish its jurisdiction on the basis of an inconvenient forum. In the case at bar, no evidentiary hearing was afforded the parties at which they could submit information for the district court to consider. See 43-1244(b). There is no record that the court considered the factors required by § 43-1244. After a court of this state has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, the objecting party is entitled to know that the trial court has engaged in a proper consideration of all relevant factors and to a record that allows for meaningful appellate review. See § 43-1244(b). For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district court erred by failing to comply with the provisions of the UCCJEA.