Opinion ID: 1109647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transfer to the California State Court

Text: Mrs. Castleberry contends the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction because Mr. Castleberry wrongfully kept the children in Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-23-15 (Supp. 1988) provides: (1) If the petitioner for an initial decree has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if this is just and proper under the circumstances. (2) Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly removed the child from the physical custody of the person entitled to custody or has improperly retained the child after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of physical custody. If the petitioner has violated any other provision of a custody decree of another state the court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if this is just and proper under the circumstances. (3) In appropriate cases a court dismissing a petition under this section may charge the petitioner with necessary travel and other expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by other parties or their witnesses. (Emphasis added). This Court has held that trial courts must decline jurisdiction where a child has been wrongfully detained within its jurisdiction unless the potential harm to the child outweighs the custodial misconduct. Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726, 731 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Hill v. Hill, 481 So.2d 227, 229 (Miss. 1985)), (emphasis added). The chancellor entered a temporary decree on September 24, 1986, wherein the children were temporarily placed in the custody of Mr. Castleberry pending the final disposition in this cause. The chancellor had considered enough information concerning this case at that time to know that this cause warranted extraordinary relief by placing temporary custody with the father. Mr. Castleberry, therefore, has not wrongfully retained the children; he retained the children under a valid temporary order. In addition, the chancellor found that the motion to transfer this case back to the State of California would not be in the best interest of the children, and would in fact be damaging to them beyond repair. Mrs. Castleberry further contends the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction because Mississippi is an inconvenient forum. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-23-13 provides: (1) A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. (2) A finding of inconvenient forum may be made upon the court's own motion or upon motion of a party or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child. (3) In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others: (a) If another state is or recently was the child's home state; (b) If another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants; (c) If substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; (d) If the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and (e) If the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the provisions of this chapter. (4) Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court with a view to assuring that jurisdiction will be exercised by the more appropriate court and that a forum will be available to the parties. (5) If the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it may dismiss the proceedings, or it may stay the proceedings upon condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another named state or upon any other conditions which may be just and proper, including the condition that a moving party stipulate his consent and submission to the jurisdiction of the other forum. (6) The court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding. (7) If it appears to the court that it is clearly an inappropriate forum it may require the party who commenced the proceedings to pay, in addition to the costs of the proceedings in this state, necessary travel and other expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by other parties or their witnesses. Payment is to be made to the clerk of the court for remittance to the proper party. (8) Upon dismissal or stay of proceedings under this section the court shall inform the court found to be the more appropriate forum of this fact or, if the court which would have jurisdiction in the other state is not certainly known, shall transmit the information to the court administrator or other appropriate official for forwarding to the appropriate court. (9) Any communication received from another state informing this state of a finding of inconvenient forum because a court of this state is the more appropriate forum shall be filed in the custody registry of the appropriate court. Upon assuming jurisdiction the court of this state shall inform the original court of this fact. In regards to forum, this Court stated in Brown v. Brown, 493 So.2d 961 (Miss. 1986): That there is another action regarding the same subject matter pending in the courts of a sister state poses no jurisdictional obstacle to a court of this state of otherwise competent jurisdiction hearing and adjudging the matter in controversy. The question is not whether the Chancery Court has jurisdiction of this matter but how it should exercise such jurisdiction as it has. Whether under these facts Mississippi should defer to California is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Chancery Court, informed by the presence or absence of exigent circumstances, the legitimate needs and conveniences of the parties, and considerations of interstate comity and the need to avoid unseemly forum shopping. Brown at 963 (citations omitted). In this case, unlike Brown, evidence was presented demonstrating there is an immediate threat to the best interest of the parties' children. That evidence was sufficient for the trial court to refuse transfer of subject matter jurisdiction. Finding no error in the chancellor's actions, this Court affirms his order assuming subject matter jurisdiction. The case is remanded for a hearing on the merits of the modification petition if such has not already been heard. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, J., dissents without opinion. BLASS, J., not participating.